planetmars wrote:
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Everything 2021-22 Free Agency / Off-Season
Collapse
X
-
golden wrote: View Post
How do you know they didn't shoot for a long term deal? Were you involved in the negotiations? I mean, it is kind of a long-term deal... at Trent's option.
And even if we play along with your theory that we were only signing Trent to trade him later, how is an overpay contract which rapidly becomes a UFA at the end of next season, with no team control attractive to the receiving team? That is.... other than as pure salary ballast? I mean, it's not hard to create salary ballast, is it? Teams like the Kings, Wizards and Hornets have been doing that for years.
The other posterior extraction theory is that Masai & Bobby have embraced the fact that players simply do not want to come to Toronto and they are bending over backwards to placate player agents, like Klutch and Bartelstein (Lowry's agent).
Two years is as short as a deal comes for a guy with rights like that - if it's going to be a one year deal you tell him to take his QO.
Maybe they did want a longer term deal, but then it's just a complete coincidence how the team's big contracts are all aligned in term for a pivot two years from now... Bit of a stretch.
Obviously they still want Trent to overachieve on the deal. But if he does decently well, he'll be tradeable whether it's on a 15M deal or a 20M deal - it's not like he's a max guy like Wiggins who will hurt to take in. And if he does amazingly well, in that case there's not really any increased value in the exact price point he's at, since he'd be a pending FA anyway. A team trading for him would be doing so to get his Bird Rights.
Like I said, it's not as pure salary ballast. It's about creating another decent quality piece on a contract that can be the foundation for a high salary trade. He obviously can't be terrible or it won't work. But if he's good enough to be included in such a trade, his exact salary isn't going to be all that relevant, except in so far as it allows them to match a bigger returning salary, in which case being a little bit higher is helpful.
Comment
-
MixxAOR wrote: View Post
How is 18 mil for 5 years let's say is better then? If it's already high for him
If they were going to give the player option then they should have given him much less per year.
And what teams out there were in on Trent Jr? Was his market really that high that we had to get that contract signed right away, or couldn't match one? Markkanen is still not signed and he's arguably a better player.
Comment
-
DanH wrote: View Post
The entire core is set up to either expire or be heading into an expiring year two summers from now.
They have two seasons of chances for this core and then a clear tear down option thereafter.
Comment
-
planetmars wrote: View Post
It's just bad all the way around. $18M is too high for a guy that hasn't proven anything. If you are hoping for growth on that deal, you only paid for 2 years. It's not enough time to make that contract worthwhile.
If they were going to give the player option then they should have given him much less per year.
And what teams out there were in on Trent Jr? Was his market really that high that we had to get that contract signed right away, or couldn't match one? Markkanen is still not signed and he's arguably a better player.
Markkanen must be trash then. Why is he not signed?Only one thing matters: We The Champs.
Comment
-
MixxAOR wrote: View PostI think you guys care too much about rebuilding/tanking core. I doubt they are really really trying to win.
Comment
-
planetmars wrote: View Post
If that's the case then they should have traded Norm for a future pick.. not a guy that might leave in 2 years before the new core we are developing is ready.
- 1 like
Comment
-
-
Primer wrote: View Post
If Trent averages 20 points per game will you think he's on a good value contract? Because I think he's gonna average 20 points a game.
If he gets to 20ppg, then in 2 years we will have to pay around $25M+ to keep him (assuming he sticks around). If we had an option on that 3rd year or guaranteed it, then we could have saved a lot of cap in that transition year when Pascal/OG/Birch also come off the books... and use that cap space to get a max player or two (if we wanted to) to play with Achiuawa, Barnes and possibly Flynn/Banton/etc.
Comment
-
planetmars wrote: View Post
I don't like his player option in 3 years, so no.
If he gets to 20ppg, then in 2 years we will have to pay around $25M+ to keep him (assuming he sticks around). If we had an option on that 3rd year or guaranteed it, then we could have saved a lot of cap in that transition year when Pascal/OG/Birch also come off the books... and use that cap space to get a max player or two (if we wanted to) to play with Achiuawa, Barnes and possibly Flynn/Banton/etc.
- 1 like
Comment
-
-
golden wrote: View Post
Lol. That’s pretty twisted logic. Hey… let’s overpay a guy so we can trade him for a superstar, maybe.
It’s clear that Masai, Bobby and Nurse are betting the farm on our development system and they believe our players will eventually out perform their contracts, which are questionable at the time of signing. That’s the correct answer here, not some theoretical star-hunting scenario that’s unpredictable and completely out of their control.
The reality is the Raptors have historically had a harder time attracting/retaining free agents, and sometimes (though not always) there might be a premium there to be able to do it, especially if the team is getting its way on term. In this case, that's the combination of $ and term that was agreeable by both parties. Like any other player, how moveable the deal will be in the future will mostly depend on if he played up to it or down from it, as well as the term left and the player age at the time of the deal.
Comment
-
Current management has avoided max length contracts and coordinated terms for some time now, this is the MO of this FO, it's not some new hypothesis. I mean they just lost Gasol and Ibaka and whiffed on Giannis doing this. Then they didn't pivot to handing out a pile of max length contracts, they did more of the same - shorter deals with higher AAV so the team can pivot easily, has tradeable pieces, can hit FA if they want, etc. Players benefit from the higher AAV and, depending on age and timeline, may make more money in the end. The team benefits by retaining flexibility rather than having to spend to unload undesirable contracts at some point. Everyone wins.
As for the different terms, maybe some guys are more willing to take these deals than others. Birch doesn't have the upside or the career years remaining GTJ does, could be as simple as Birch really wanted another year and the team wanted him enough and didn't see it as a big issue anyway. Because we already know they're willing to just lose role players if term interferes with their future flexibility plans."We're playing in a building." -- Kawhi Leonard
- 1 like
Comment
-
DanH wrote: View Post
The entire core is set up to either expire or be heading into an expiring year two summers from now.
They have two seasons of chances for this core and then a clear tear down option thereafter.
Comment
Comment