Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Everything Gary Trent Jr.

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

  • DanH wrote: View Post

    So... I'm going to need you to point out where I'm talking about you and not about your assumptions/points/ideas?



    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.



    I am treating you as an equal, expressing my honest opinion of your (in my honest opinion) ridiculous assertions in this thread.
    I don't think either of us has any more insight about the negotiations surrounding QO than the other that is my point... so suggesting I am silly because I don't think that not giving a player option doesn't automatically result in you having to max out a player especially one you have bird rights on... but yeah

    Comment


    • TrueTorontoFan wrote: View Post

      I don't think either of us has any more insight about the negotiations surrounding QO than the other that is my point... so suggesting I am silly because I don't think that not giving a player option doesn't automatically result in you having to max out a player especially one you have bird rights on... but yeah
      I don't think it automatically means maxing out Gary and never suggested it did. I said I thought the ask from Gary was probably the max or close to it to go long term. And that it would be a significant increase in price to get a third or fourth year on the contract. And that thinking Gary would sign up for more term for very little increase in AAV - that is silly. Because obviously if that were the case they'd have done that.
      twitter.com/dhackett1565

      Comment


      • DanH wrote: View Post

        I don't think it automatically means maxing out Gary and never suggested it did. I said I thought the ask from Gary was probably the max or close to it to go long term. And that it would be a significant increase in price to get a third or fourth year on the contract. And that thinking Gary would sign up for more term for very little increase in AAV - that is silly. Because obviously if that were the case they'd have done that.

        Right so if that is the case and he asked for that what is to say he would for sure get that... he owuldn't have gotten that on the market?


        I told you before I didn't want to give an exact number on the increased value only that I wish that they would have figured out a way to get up to 3 years without a PO. That was literally it.

        Comment


        • TrueTorontoFan wrote: View Post


          Right so if that is the case and he asked for that what is to say he would for sure get that... he owuldn't have gotten that on the market?


          I told you before I didn't want to give an exact number on the increased value only that I wish that they would have figured out a way to get up to 3 years without a PO. That was literally it.
          He would not have gotten it on the market. That's why he didn't just sign an offer sheet - the market he wanted wasn't there. When players are faced with that reality (as Fred was a few years ago), they sign short term deals, to try to hit the market after boosting their value by improving their play or production in the short term.

          But you can't turn to a player and say: "See? There's no three year deal for near the max out there, now you HAVE to sign a cheaper three year deal with us." They have to agree to sign! You can decide to only offer that three year deal for some value the player doesn't like (ie the using your leverage to try to get a favourable deal we talked about earlier) but then the player can sign their QO (the player using their leverage, as we discussed earlier). You can't make them sign anything they don't like. As it should be, obviously.

          As for your original point, my only response to that was: well, how much would you have paid to do that, to get that third year? And to point out that whatever your number was, I'd bet the ask from Gary was significantly higher. Hence them not doing it.
          twitter.com/dhackett1565

          Comment


          • DanH wrote: View Post

            He would not have gotten it on the market. That's why he didn't just sign an offer sheet - the market he wanted wasn't there. When players are faced with that reality (as Fred was a few years ago), they sign short term deals, to try to hit the market after boosting their value by improving their play or production in the short term.

            But you can't turn to a player and say: "See? There's no three year deal for near the max out there, now you HAVE to sign a cheaper three year deal with us." They have to agree to sign! You can decide to only offer that three year deal for some value the player doesn't like (ie the using your leverage to try to get a favourable deal we talked about earlier) but then the player can sign their QO (the player using their leverage, as we discussed earlier). You can't make them sign anything they don't like. As it should be, obviously.

            As for your original point, my only response to that was: well, how much would you have paid to do that, to get that third year? And to point out that whatever your number was, I'd bet the ask from Gary was significantly higher. Hence them not doing it.
            On the first point.
            Not suggesting you take the sun's approach.. although some franchises take it but there may exist an in between. But also sometimes you have a conversation with a a player so that they dont take an offer sheet. this is why its called a relationship driven business. Sometimes you do right by agents because they drive a lot of things in the league other times you may not. You don't have to be a jerkoff and sohuldn/t be when negotiating with players. Franchises do it but even if you have a fundamental disagreement on player evaluation with said player... there is a way of handling it without saying... SEE THERE IS NO THREE YEAR DEAL. There are ways to have that conversation without being so.... hamfisted about it. I am not sure if they wanted to do that or not.



            Regarding the second point.
            My point is I have no idea for that last point but you keep hammering it.. If I don't know I don't know... I also am just outlining that you are purely speculating on this as much as I am whether you admit it or not simple as that. I think we are done on this point here.


            There was basically no need to try to shut down the notion in an effort to push the I am right and you are wrong idea on this one because as I have said multiple times neither of us were part of this negotiation. Unless you were in which case by all means let me know more because I would like to learn more but if it isn't then yeah its not really more different than speculating in any direction which I laid out from the jump.



            At this point There isn't much else to discuss. Unless you really enjoy debating about the semantics of this... If you are honestly not understanding my point then either reread it ask for clarity or move on. I do think there is a fundamental disconnect between what you are proposing I am suggesting vs what I am suggesting.

            Comment


            • TrueTorontoFan wrote: View Post

              On the first point.
              Not suggesting you take the sun's approach.. although some franchises take it but there may exist an in between. But also sometimes you have a conversation with a a player so that they dont take an offer sheet. this is why its called a relationship driven business. Sometimes you do right by agents because they drive a lot of things in the league other times you may not. You don't have to be a jerkoff and sohuldn/t be when negotiating with players. Franchises do it but even if you have a fundamental disagreement on player evaluation with said player... there is a way of handling it without saying... SEE THERE IS NO THREE YEAR DEAL. There are ways to have that conversation without being so.... hamfisted about it. I am not sure if they wanted to do that or not.
              Uh, sure they can use flowery language, but how do you expect them to get him to sign a deal he clearly didn't want to sign given the one he did sign? Asking nicely? Saying nice things like "we value you" only matters if you then give the player a contract that makes them feel valued.

              Regarding the second point.
              My point is I have no idea for that last point but you keep hammering it.. If I don't know I don't know... I also am just outlining that you are purely speculating on this as much as I am whether you admit it or not simple as that. I think we are done on this point here.


              There was basically no need to try to shut down the notion in an effort to push the I am right and you are wrong idea on this one because as I have said multiple times neither of us were part of this negotiation. Unless you were in which case by all means let me know more because I would like to learn more but if it isn't then yeah its not really more different than speculating in any direction which I laid out from the jump.



              At this point There isn't much else to discuss. Unless you really enjoy debating about the semantics of this... If you are honestly not understanding my point then either reread it ask for clarity or move on. I do think there is a fundamental disconnect between what you are proposing I am suggesting vs what I am suggesting.
              Yes, yes, neither of us were part of the negotiation, but if I told you Masai asked for Trent's first born child as part of the deal, you would be right to call me ridiculous even though neither of us were there. We can use evidence from similar negotiation outcomes, front office history, and just plain logic. But if you have no interest in discussions with those elements included then yeah, happy to drop it and we can back to throwing out ideas and pretending they make sense.
              twitter.com/dhackett1565

              Comment


              • DanH wrote: View Post

                Uh, sure they can use flowery language, but how do you expect them to get him to sign a deal he clearly didn't want to sign given the one he did sign? Asking nicely? Saying nice things like "we value you" only matters if you then give the player a contract that makes them feel valued.



                Yes, yes, neither of us were part of the negotiation, but if I told you Masai asked for Trent's first born child as part of the deal, you would be right to call me ridiculous even though neither of us were there. We can use evidence from similar negotiation outcomes, front office history, and just plain logic. But if you have no interest in discussions with those elements included then yeah, happy to drop it and we can back to throwing out ideas and pretending they make sense.


                This is the type of silliness I am talking about. This doesn't even need to be brought up because it is a faulty analogy... it literally does nothing to add to the conversation. It is literally a logical fallacy. Perhaps that is causing the disconnect. Unless you truly believe the bolded point is the equivalent of me saying hey perhaps they could have pushed a bit more than perhaps they may have.

                Do you truly believe they are in the same realm and remotely comparable? Be honest. If you don't that lets me know that you have not been operating in good faith discussion here but if you do believe that then it points to a bigger issue.

                That is exactly why I called you out on being snide and rude and condescending because my assumption is that you are able to comprehend when you are being so even if you choose to do it anyways without any prompting.


                On the point of flowery language no you can go deeper than that. Again I am not sure if you have been part of contract negotiations at a remotely higher level but it goes beyond flowery language. But I will ignore that specific point.

                Comment


                • TrueTorontoFan wrote: View Post



                  This is the type of silliness I am talking about. This doesn't even need to be brought up because it is a faulty analogy... it literally does nothing to add to the conversation. It is literally a logical fallacy. Perhaps that is causing the disconnect. Unless you truly believe the bolded point is the equivalent of me saying hey perhaps they could have pushed a bit more than perhaps they may have.

                  Do you truly believe they are in the same realm and remotely comparable? Be honest. If you don't that lets me know that you have not been operating in good faith discussion here but if you do believe that then it points to a bigger issue.

                  That is exactly why I called you out on being snide and rude and condescending because my assumption is that you are able to comprehend when you are being so even if you choose to do it anyways without any prompting.


                  On the point of flowery language no you can go deeper than that. Again I am not sure if you have been part of contract negotiations at a remotely higher level but it goes beyond flowery language. But I will ignore that specific point.
                  It's just a demonstration that using the logic that neither of us were there is nonsense. There are things we can know without being there, and things we can logically infer from the outcome and general knowledge of what players and front offices general are trying for in negotiations. When presenting a point like you are that runs contrary to evidence and logic, it's always an easy out to say "well, neither of us were there so we don't KNOW." It's a cop out. Which is fine if you aren't interested in actually parsing the discussion. I thought you were interested in that considering you kept, you know, replying to the discussion.

                  OK, at least here's an interesting point! So let's discard the flowery language. What concrete contractual terms could they offer Trent in that negotiation to leverage him into accepting a full third year without increasing his pay to the point he wanted it at? I'm very curious.
                  twitter.com/dhackett1565

                  Comment


                  • DanH wrote: View Post

                    It's just a demonstration that using the logic that neither of us were there is nonsense. There are things we can know without being there, and things we can logically infer from the outcome and general knowledge of what players and front offices general are trying for in negotiations. When presenting a point like you are that runs contrary to evidence and logic, it's always an easy out to say "well, neither of us were there so we don't KNOW." It's a cop out. Which is fine if you aren't interested in actually parsing the discussion. I thought you were interested in that considering you kept, you know, replying to the discussion.

                    OK, at least here's an interesting point! So let's discard the flowery language. What concrete contractual terms could they offer Trent in that negotiation to leverage him into accepting a full third year without increasing his pay to the point he wanted it at? I'm very curious.


                    point out that neither of us were there wasn't used to invalidate your point though.... .... I don't think you are operating in good faith on this one so no I am no longer interested in it. On the flip side all you have done is try to invalidate mine yet neither of us were there. So you can't exactly operate with the level of certainty in terms of what was an wasn't on the table in this negotiation. Perhaps Bobby and Masai agreed they wanted to stay below a certain number rather than risk going above the tax line because they were very close to that mark yesterday. But to act like there was zero way that there was no additional year to be discussed at all like max or bust I dont know.



                    Holmes was rumored at the time to have a mutual interest with the raptors. Glad it didn't happen personally because I was meh on the deal in terms of my feelings. At the same time one of the things that were reported was there was a disagreement on the length of the term, with the raptors wanting a shorter term than Holmes felt comfortable with. Again perhaps JUST MAYBE they made the decision to focus on flexibility.


                    I have already stated multiple times an increase in pay to the point where he wants may not necessarily have meant a max.








                    I do think we have an amazing front office but that doesn't mean I can't wonder if they regret decisions even minorly in the past.... no front office or human for that matter is without mistake. Even if you hit 9.5/10. I am not necessarily saying this is or is not a mistake but I would be curious to ask bobby about that. But won't ever get the chance to do so more than likely.



                    But treating that very idea as if I am delusional is where I soured on this conversation and grew pretty "upset" as you described or rather disappointed as I would characterize it. There are similarities between the two but not quite the same. Based on previous conversations with you I expected more.


                    To your second point .... I again don't feel like engaging on this point you are seemingly not operating in good faith .... whether you are demonstrating the ability to recognize it is besides the point. I suspect you realize.
                    Last edited by TrueTorontoFan; Fri Jul 29, 2022, 06:24 PM.

                    Comment


                    • In terms of contracts what is interesting is how guys may negotiate the schedule of payments because getting more money up front rather than on a scheduled interval is actually better if you know how to invest... I believe Lebron has that worked into his contract.


                      this is not related to the Dan conversation
                      Last edited by TrueTorontoFan; Fri Jul 29, 2022, 06:09 PM.

                      Comment


                      • TrueTorontoFan wrote: View Post
                        In terms of contracts what is interesting is how guys may negotiate the schedule of payments because getting more money up front rather than on a scheduled interval is actually better if you know how to invest... I believe Lebron has that worked into his contract.


                        this is not related to the Dan conversation
                        Over the last 40 years or so, the stock market has appreciated at a rate close to 7% a year. You are absolutely correct. A front loaded contract will show a significantly better result at the four year mark. And that is with nothing more elaborate than investing in a spread of stocks. People investing the amount that these players can afford to invest have access to much better advice than you or I do. And many stock investments are treated much more favourably than income.

                        Comment


                        • This needs the Rocky theme song:

                          Comment


                          • Scottie keeps seriously pumping GTJr's tires....100% he's not being traded

                            Comment


                            • G__Deane wrote: View Post
                              Scottie keeps seriously pumping GTJr's tires....100% he's not being traded
                              I mean scottie likes everyone though.. he liked sam dekker and we cut his ass.. he liked dragic... GONNNNE... so at the end of the day its nice but it will come down to a number of different things.

                              Comment


                              • All signs point towards it being the Siakam and Barnes show next season. Surrounding them with shooters is a good idea.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X