Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

David Aldridge's off-season grades. Toronto Raptors: 18

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

  • #46
    TheGloveinRapsUniform wrote: View Post
    IMO, yes. Im not sure about the terms of his contract, but either way, if the owners end up not liking the deals he's made, then they can fire him any time. I think he's well established enough in the league that he knows he'll be able to find a job in some capacity so he probably wont play it safe, contract year or not.

    IMO, Fields was a pawn, no more no less. I think BC knew it would be a win-semi win gamble on their part if they took a risk on Fields as a pawn in the Nash signing. It wouldve been a tremendous win if they got steve nash and partial win even if they end up with Fields. I think JJ was gone regardless of the Fields signing.
    Most definitely agree.

    Comment


    • #47
      Apollo wrote: View Post
      And why did they need to rush to upgrade right away?
      Because Colangelo is on a contract year.

      Apollo wrote: View Post
      Does anyone feel Landry can live up to his contract?
      Despite being of the opinion signing Landry Fields to that contract was a really bad idea, I believe there is a small possibility Landry Fields can live up to his contract. But as I can't imagine Fields being a bargain, paying his maximum worth under the best of circumstances makes no sense to me.

      Apollo wrote: View Post
      Standing pat is better than summoning "Colangelo pre-extension". I like Batum, he fits everything they said they were about.
      I would rather the Raptors did not sign Landry Fields and did not pursue Steve Nash. I saw no point whatsoever in Colangelo pursuing Nash at the money that was suggested if other than to save his job.

      I like the Lowry trade.

      Apollo wrote: View Post
      Here's a question for all. If Colangelo was not on a contract year do you feel he would be operating the off-season like he has so far?
      If it was dependent on him, no. If it was dependent on the owners pushing to get certain things achieved, then who knows.

      BryCo is a Spin Doctor and has no trouble restating the goals in a manner that will best benefit himself and his employer. A bit like a CEO who tells the shareholders the Company had a great year because they grew the EBIT by 5.2% and the employees they would only received 1.6% raises on average because they failed to increase the EBIT to 6.0%, as projected.

      It's a talent.

      Comment


      • #48
        Miekenstien wrote: View Post
        i just googled 2012 nba sf free agents and this is the first list that came up

        http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2012/6...small-forwards

        landry isn't even on it because i think they say he is a 2. from this list i would take grant hill/batum and against what a lot of people say, beasley, over landry. the beas would have been a lot cheaper, hill would have been a great vet and batum would have had more potential.
        Beasley wouldn't be cheaper, he basically got an identical contract to Fields, 3 years $18M, compared to Fields 3 years $18.725M. I for one would much much much much much (did I say much?) rather have Fields on the Raptors than Beasley.

        We're talking 6.7 WP for Fields in a bad season for him, vs a -0.3 for Beasley.
        Also, Fields had a better WP than Gay too. Advanced stats are on his side big time.

        Comment


        • #49
          Primer wrote: View Post
          Beasley wouldn't be cheaper, he basically got an identical contract to Fields, 3 years $18M, compared to Fields 3 years $18.725M. I for one would much much much much much (did I say much?) rather have Fields on the Raptors than Beasley.

          We're talking 6.7 WP for Fields in a bad season for him, vs a -0.3 for Beasley.
          Also, Fields had a better WP than Gay too. Advanced stats are on his side big time.
          I do agree with you. Not to mention that Beasley has never lived up to the potential, and his off-court problems.

          Fields > Beasley any day of the week for me.

          Comment


          • #50
            Primer wrote: View Post
            Beasley wouldn't be cheaper, he basically got an identical contract to Fields, 3 years $18M, compared to Fields 3 years $18.725M. I for one would much much much much much (did I say much?) rather have Fields on the Raptors than Beasley.

            We're talking 6.7 WP for Fields in a bad season for him, vs a -0.3 for Beasley.
            Also, Fields had a better WP than Gay too. Advanced stats are on his side big time.
            There's really no point comparing Fields to a bunch of other wings that were never going to be Raptors, for one reason or another. Guys like Batum (always going to be matched by Portland), Beasley (BC passed on him once, not the character/defense/hustle type of player BC/DC want), Hill (doubt he'd have any interest signing with a rebuilding team with no Nash, even if BC was interested, which I personally doubt he was) should never enter into a comparison with Fields, from the Raptors' perspective.

            Is Fields $1-2M overpaid, based on his average salary over the life of the contract? Yes. Though technically he's not really even overpaid until the 3rd year of his deal, when is spikes significantly. However, as a 26 year old veteran wing on an expiring $9M-ish contract, who says he even finishes the contract with the Raptors? I think he'll be a decent addition, albeit perhaps slightly overpaid, but I don't see his signing preventing other better moves from getting done (either ones we've already missed out on or could miss out on).

            Comment


            • #51
              CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post

              Is Fields $1-2M overpaid, based on his average salary over the life of the contract? Yes. Though technically he's not really even overpaid until the 3rd year of his deal, when is spikes significantly. However, as a 26 year old veteran wing on an expiring $9M-ish contract, who says he even finishes the contract with the Raptors? I think he'll be a decent addition, albeit perhaps slightly overpaid, but I don't see his signing preventing other better moves from getting done (either ones we've already missed out on or could miss out on).

              he is a cap hit of 6.whatever a year for us, the average of the three years together.

              Comment


              • #52
                Miekenstien wrote: View Post
                he is a cap hit of 6.whatever a year for us, the average of the three years together.
                I don't think he is a cap hit. We have flexibility from now, till next Summer with the expiring/trade-able asset of Jose and his contract, and the need to clear up the 4-spot. I believe the real problem with the contract, is whether Fields was really worth that money.

                We have the possibility to have about 10$ million free in cap space with the expiring contract of Jose (correct if mistaken). We have good flexibility for next summer, being rumoured that this team's off-season is complete, next possible moves by trade-deadline. Letting Demar walk, Jose walk, and using either Ed/Amir in a trade, could clear up considerable cap space next summer.

                Comment


                • #53
                  RaptorReuben wrote: View Post
                  I don't think he is a cap hit.

                  We have the possibility to have about 10$ million free in cap space with the expiring contract of Jose (correct if mistaken). summer.
                  the first one. yes he has a cap hit, every player counts to the cap. i posted a link in another thread or earlier in this one about the new restricted free agency contract/cap numbers and it would have worked out for nyk as year one 4.5 year 2 4.5 and then year 3 9 million. but for us it is 18.whatever/3 per year.


                  this year a lot the savings of jose expiring will be eaten by the cap hold of demar or if the sign an extension his next contracts yearly figure will be his cap number.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Miekenstien wrote: View Post
                    the first one. yes he has a cap hit, every player counts to the cap. i posted a link in another thread or earlier in this one about the new restricted free agency contract/cap numbers and it would have worked out for nyk as year one 4.5 year 2 4.5 and then year 3 9 million. but for us it is 18.whatever/3 per year.


                    this year a lot the savings of jose expiring will be eaten by the cap hold of demar or if the sign an extension his next contracts yearly figure will be his cap number.
                    Sorry, I thought when you meant by cap hit, I thought you meant, it hits our cap badly that we don't have that flexibility anymore. That's why I elaborated into next Summer and our future cap. My bad.

                    I remember someone saying there is a difference with re-signing a player with rights, and I believe Demar was that exception, or something of that sort... Sorry, also confusing myself there, but apparently, Demar's contract would not hit our cap room completely. :S :?

                    Otherwise, I do agree, but remember, either Ed and Amir are expendable, allowing to free up at least 2$ million in cap, minus the approx. 8$ million in Demar's contract from Jose's expiring contract, the team would be left with 4$ million next season, not to mention we can still use the MLE? (correct me if I'm mistaken). Sorry, not totally certain on the financial part of the game.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Matt52 wrote: View Post
                      +1

                      Same with Amir Johnson's supposed 5 year, $35M deal.
                      +1 again

                      sometimes they just need to write something quickly in order to meet deadlines....The problem is a story builds around these fluff points and all of a sudden we are being lambasted for certain moves based on inaccurate information

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Hugmenot wrote: View Post
                        Because Colangelo is on a contract year.
                        That's my whole point. This didn't happen for the future of the team. This happened for the future of Colangelo so let's stop clowning ourselves here.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X