Wilson Chandler to Toronto? Forget about it (473)

[saints91]

It is a bit confusing, but my take on it is this:

If he can get here before March 1, he is still a restricted free agent, and Denver can still offer him a qualifying offer. Any team can offer him a contract but Denver has the right to match. However he cannot participate in a sign and trade since the season is already under way.

If he gets here after March 1, he would become a UFA since Denver no longer has the ability to offer him a qualifying offer. He can sign anywhere and for whatever terms he wants.

Again, this is my take on what I've read, and could be wrong.

I'm not sure if that's the case. When Josh Childress went to Europe for 2 years instead of signing an offer sheet with Atlanta, when he came back to the NBA Atlanta still had the rights of first refusal. So Childress was still a RFA after a 2 year absence. The same would have to apply to Chandler. If he is not released before March 1st then an offer sheet can't be signed, Chandler would probably have to wait till the summer and he will still be a RFA.

I don't see how Denver would lose his rights in that situation, because he chose to spend the season overseas.

I could be wrong, but it seems like a similar case.


If he does come back before March 1st then he is a RFA, and Denver can match anyones offer. He could choose to finish the year with Denver and become a UFA in the summer.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

I'm really tired and having trouble thinking. Can anyone add insight.

What exactly are Chandler's options?

He can't sign qualifying offer after March 1.
He can't do sign and trade during season with anyone.

If he plays out the season in Denver does he become an UFA?
Can he sign with anyone he chooses?
What about restricted free agency - does Denver still have the right to match any offer?


I'm a little confused.

Excuse my ignorance as well, but couldn't another option be for Denver to re-sign him (using their Bird-rights), only to trade him later in the season (ie: at the trade deadline)? Then it wouldn't be an offer-sheet signing or a S&T... it would be a legit re-signing and then a legit trade, wouldn't it???

[planetmars]

I'm not sure if that's the case. When Josh Childress went to Europe for 2 years instead of signing an offer sheet with Atlanta, when he came back to the NBA Atlanta still had the rights of first refusal. So Childress was still a RFA after a 2 year absence. The same would have to apply to Chandler. If he is not released before March 1st then an offer sheet can't be signed, Chandler would probably have to wait till the summer and he will still be a RFA.

I don't see how Denver would lose his rights in that situation, because he chose to spend the season overseas.

I could be wrong, but it seems like a similar case.


If he does come back before March 1st then he is a RFA, and Denver can match anyones offer. He could choose to finish the year with Denver and become a UFA in the summer.

You are probably right about this.. it makes more sense. So after March 1, Chandler would be denied access to the NBA. Once the playoffs are over, Denver can then sign him to an offer sheet, and another team can match. I personally would prefer Batum over Chandler.

So if this was the case, then they are basically both in the same boat - except Bryan has a history with Ujiri and probably not so much with Cho.

[mcHAPPY]

Excuse my ignorance as well, but couldn't another option be for Denver to re-sign him (using their Bird-rights), only to trade him later in the season (ie: at the trade deadline)? Then it wouldn't be an offer-sheet signing or a S&T... it would be a legit re-signing and then a legit trade, wouldn't it???

There are timeframes after a signing where a player cannot be traded. In a normal season it is 3 months or December 15th whichever is later. This year due to lockout it is 2 months or March 1st whichever is later.

If Chandler was signed by Denver after March 1st, he can't be traded until the off season.

[mcHAPPY]

I'm not sure if that's the case. When Josh Childress went to Europe for 2 years instead of signing an offer sheet with Atlanta, when he came back to the NBA Atlanta still had the rights of first refusal. So Childress was still a RFA after a 2 year absence. The same would have to apply to Chandler. If he is not released before March 1st then an offer sheet can't be signed, Chandler would probably have to wait till the summer and he will still be a RFA.

I don't see how Denver would lose his rights in that situation, because he chose to spend the season overseas.

I could be wrong, but it seems like a similar case.


If he does come back before March 1st then he is a RFA, and Denver can match anyones offer. He could choose to finish the year with Denver and become a UFA in the summer.

Very similar to Kleiza's situation with Denver/Greece as well and Toronto's subsequent signing.

[big_chris]

If the Raptors traded Ed for Vucevic crap would hit the fan.Yeah, he looks like a really nice prospect but Ed went much higher, his perceived upside is higher and his "name notoriety" is much higher.

I would be down for trading for Turner straight up but as I mentioned somewhere in here, Turner only went 2nd overall a couple years ago. Managements' fate is tied to Turner's fate right now. They would need more for him than Ed Davis just for the perception of it alone. I don't believe Turner is worth more than a straight up trade right now.

Evan Turner was drafted by our GM, Ed Stefanski, on June 24 2010. Rod Thorn drafted Derrick Favors in that draft. Turner wasn't his pick. They are 15 - 6 right now anyway's. I don't think his fate would be tied to a single player even if he had drafted him. You don't bring in a GM like Rod Thorn to give him that short of a leash.

[Prime]

As we were discussing in another forum on free agency in 2012, found here here are some of the contracts given out to starting small forwards in the league (actually some are not even starters).

Wilson Chandler will command and get much more than $6M. I think a starting salary of $8M plus/minus 500K will be a starting point. If I was Toronto I would look to get a front loaded contract with a signing bonus if at all possible (i.e. if they shed Calderon and/or Barbosa).

The problem with a front-loaded contract is that it's very hard to gain enough leverage to convince the player that their performance is going to be worse in 3-4 years. You're essentially telling the guy: "Hey we like your game right now but I can't say the same in a couple of years". Unless you're hugely overpaying or trying to sign a 40-year old journeyman vet, you probably wouldn't have any luck. Generally speaking, this is why most players don't agree to these kinds of deal and also why the mid-level and Bird exceptions are always for contracts that are increasing in scale.

As for Chandler, he is at the moment neither old enough nor overvalued at $8M.

[mcHAPPY]

The problem with a front-loaded contract is that it's very hard to gain enough leverage to convince the player that their performance is going to be worse in 3-4 years. You're essentially telling the guy: "Hey we like your game right now but I can't say the same in a couple of years". Unless you're hugely overpaying or trying to sign a 40-year old journeyman vet, you probably wouldn't have any luck. Generally speaking, this is why most players don't agree to these kinds of deal and also why the mid-level and Bird exceptions are always for contracts that are increasing in scale.

As for Chandler, he is at the moment neither old enough nor overvalued at $8M.

I'm not sure I agree.

There are a few front loaded contracts around. JJ Redick and Kirk Hinrich come immediately to mind.

I think total dollars of the contract is the key.

Some people would prefer to have more money coming up front. Personally, I'd rather have the money sooner than later.

[Joey]

I'm not sure I agree.

There are a few front loaded contracts around. JJ Redick and Kirk Hinrich come immediately to mind.

I think total dollars of the contract is the key.

Some people would prefer to have more money coming up front. Personally, I'd rather have the money sooner than later.

Precisely. Fully agree.

I think if most players COULD get a front loaded Contract, they'd take it.
But because teams are looking to keep the Initial signing cost (and subsequent Cap hit) at a minimum, they generally give back-loaded contracts (10% annual increases, or whatever the new deal is).

But I'm not sure that any player would take it as a sign of disrespect, if he was being offered more money up front.

[Nilanka]

I'm not sure if that's the case. When Josh Childress went to Europe for 2 years instead of signing an offer sheet with Atlanta, when he came back to the NBA Atlanta still had the rights of first refusal. So Childress was still a RFA after a 2 year absence. The same would have to apply to Chandler. If he is not released before March 1st then an offer sheet can't be signed, Chandler would probably have to wait till the summer and he will still be a RFA.

I don't see how Denver would lose his rights in that situation, because he chose to spend the season overseas.

I could be wrong, but it seems like a similar case.


If he does come back before March 1st then he is a RFA, and Denver can match anyones offer. He could choose to finish the year with Denver and become a UFA in the summer.

Similar case but under a different CBA. Difficult to draw parallels.

[Nilanka]

Yuck. If that's the market price for middle of the road (and worse) SFs, then I'd be more inclined to accumulate more draft picks or do a draft day deal for a stud SF prospect.

Denver had the top team offensive rating in the NBA last year, yet Chandler's ORTG and overall numbers dropped noticeably (OR: 109-->96). Playing time was not the main issue since he played over 30MPG. That's a bit concerning.

Chandler only played 21 games with Denver. I think that's too small of a sample size considering the new coach, teammates, and system he was facing.

[Maleko]

I'm not sure I agree.

There are a few front loaded contracts around. JJ Redick and Kirk Hinrich come immediately to mind.

I think total dollars of the contract is the key.

Some people would prefer to have more money coming up front. Personally, I'd rather have the money sooner than later.

A dollar today is worth more than a dollar next year. Front loaded is definitely better for the player.

[ebrian]

I do not understand the fascination over Wilson Chandler. He's an okay player, not great, his defense is average and his offense is decent. We need to be looking at game changers, not average guys like Wilson Chandler.

[Nilanka]

I do not understand the fascination over Wilson Chandler. He's an okay player, not great, his defense is average and his offense is decent. We need to be looking at game changers, not average guys like Wilson Chandler.

We don't have the assets to acquire "game changers" unless it's through the draft.

I don't think of Chandler as average. I think he's already above average, and is still young with plenty of room to get better.

[mcHAPPY]

We don't have the assets to acquire "game changers" unless it's through the draft.

I don't think of Chandler as average. I think he's already above average, and is still young with plenty of room to get better.

Also Wilson Chandler, on a decent contract, is a good asset to have when talking a deal for a game changer.

I agree Chandler is not average.