No announcement yet.

Can we put to rest this nonsense about Landry Fields being overpaid?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    tkfu wrote: View Post
    I actually do think he's underpaid, and Matt52 made that case earlier in this thread:

    And that's assuming his play over the next three years will be somewhere in between how he played his 1st and 2nd year. Since players in their early 20s historically tend to continue to improve, I expect better than that. I think he's a phenomenal value.

    He's underpaid because advanced stats love the guy (adjusted +/- does too, though personally I don't generally put too much stock in those numbers), and more and more of the smart teams in the league are basing their decisions on advanced stats. If he didn't get this offer from us, he would have gotten it elsewhere, you can be sure of that.
    I didn't want to make that case myself, because I wanted the focus of the thread to be on the myth that he's overpaid, so I didn't want to fill it up with folks saying OMG UR AN IDIOT HOW CAN YOU THINK HES UNDERPAID. As long as you're willing to look at the data and be rational about it, it's impossible to argue he's overpaid. To make that case, you've got to either make specious arguments about "playoff clutchness" like NoBan did, or value scoring above all else (haven't seen anyone make that case yet, thank goodness).
    I strongly disagree with this statement. He might have got an offer from someone else .. but at no where near the money. Everyone was flat out shocked at the contract value when it got announced (and we all know it (at least the dollars) had at least as much to do with Nash as it did with Landry).
    I think market value is probably something like $4 mm per year, as yes, someone else probably signs him for this. There is no evidence of anyone else willing to pay anywhere near what we paid.

    As for the advanced stats - I guess we will see. While these stats have value .. just like normal stats, looking at something like WP in a vaccuum and make a claim that its an accurate determinant of success. But, i agree it is one measure and should be given some weight.

    However, if for example, your argument was that Reggie Evans was underpaid because he was in the top 10 or top 20 in WP two years ago .. I would suggest your argument is quite flawed.


    • #32
      mountio wrote: View Post
      I strongly disagree with this statement. He might have got an offer from someone else .. but at no where near the money. Everyone was flat out shocked at the contract value when it got announced....
      Actually, the usual prognosticators and media talking heads were flat out shocked. I don't recall seeing any other GM's announcing what they would or would not have paid. Nor did we see the head of any other teams stats group revealing what they had advised their bosses to do about Fields. We HAVE read that the Raptors stats guys were advising BC on what a good player Fields was, and that they were expecting his numbers this year to be better than last year and closer to (either slightly worse or better than) his rookie year. They mentioned that his play was affected by conditions on NY.

      I can tell you for a fact that that I wasn't shocked because I hadn't paid enough attention to Fields to have an opinion. As far as the linkage to Nash, BC was getting kudos from much of the media, when they thought it was a slam dunk Nash was headed for TO. I agree it is impossible to look at that deal without taking the Nash chase into consideration. I think we will all know in two or three months whether Fields was overpaid or not.

      As to arguments about financial flexibility, we have seen over the last three years that that has no impact if you can't get dance partners. I don't know why fans keep holding that up as some longed for state. It was financial flexibility that allowed the Raps to get Turk and Jermaine. How'd that work out?


      • #33
        Applying NoBan's logic, James Harden is also trash, because he clearly stunk it up in the Finals.

        Blanket statements, especially when based on small sample sizes, are great. It doesn't take much effort to pop them out, instead of looking at each game against an entire body of work, figuring out what went wrong, and making an assessment on whether the small sample of new evidence reveals a fatal flaw or simply a weakness that needs to be worked on.


        • #34
          56% Free Throw shooting.


          • #35
            Letter N wrote: View Post
            56% Free Throw shooting.
            Carmelo's fault.... lol


            • #36
              Body of work:
              Landry is an average at very best player that regressed in his second year.

              Looking at the playoffs:
              I am not going to re-watch and code every Landry play from the series in question (is that what you expect, for real?), but suffice to say that Landry struggled to make shots and struggle to make sound, timely decisions. He lost the trust of his coaches and teammates.

              Looking at the playoffs against the body of work:
              He is an average at best player that regressed in his second year and lost the trust of this coaches and teammates in the playoffs. Do you qualify that as a blanket statement? It's more like an elementary observation from a fans perspective. Were you expecting more?

              Fatal flaw or workable weakness:
              Truth be told, it's probably a bit of both. A bit more experience in big moments, a more defined role in a team system, another summer working on his jumper and studying film, exposure to a knowledgeable and teaching coaching staff....... it all could add up well. But all those things are "maybes" at best. The truth lies in the explanation in the above paragraph. His play shouldnt have earned him the money we offered. He's overpaid. It was a bad signing. It's not nonsense. The nonsense is raptors fans thinking they are right and the entire world is wrong. Putting it to rest is akin to giving BC a pass on this dumb move and the assinine & (luckily) botched Nash courtship.

              What I do agree with is shifting focus away from whether or not it was a good move (it wasnt), or wheter or not he's overpaid (he is). Instead we can focus on addressing some of the "maybes" listed above. BC got us into a lemon, so I'm fine with hoping for lemonade.


              • #37
                I got all excited when I discovered my name being mentioned in this thread.. I thought maybe it was a thread about my genius .. but it turns out it's just a thread about an overpaid player that we signed by accident. How disappointing!

                Umm.. all sides of this argument seem correct depending on how you look at it. Here are my thoughts:

                (1) The opportunity costs and all that are bang on. Sometimes you just can't help it -- you overpay a guy because you pretty much had to even if he wasn't worth it. It's not unlike an auction where you and one other person have $35 left and there's only 1 item left. If you want that item, you have to pay $35 and you have to be the first to do it, even if it's only worth $4. It's the same reason we got Turk for $10-11M. He was never worth $10M, but Portland offered him around that too so we had to overpay to get him.

                (2) And therein lies the answer for whether or not he's overpaid. He is. The item in this case really was worth about $3-4m and we paid $6m. The reason he's overpaid is because of his valuation and how it was calculated. He was not offered $6m because he is a $6m player. He was offered that amount because that's the number they arrived at when they were coming up with a bid that they knew would screw over the Knicks. Bottom line for me about Landry Fields is that he's not excessively overpaid. Which leads me to my next point..

                (3) Most NBA players are overpaid. It's because of the competition that we have to pay a bit more than the next team so that we can land the player we want. Landry is a poor example because we got him by accident but the end result speaks for itself. The goal for most teams is (a) stockpile talent and (b) try not to overpay unless absolutely need to.

                I guess that leads to my conclusion on this topic. Is Landry Fields overpaid? I say he is but it's not the end of the world.
                your pal,


                • #38
                  ebrian wrote: View Post
                  (3) Most NBA players are overpaid. It's because of the competition that we have to pay a bit more than the next team so that we can land the player we want.
                  Let me get this straight, NBA players are overpaid, because competition from employers drives their price up? Umm, hate to break it to you, but that's how all prices work. I don't mean to get technical, but you know, supply, demmand, and stuff? Demmand drives price up. This does not make paying that price overpaying, since that is the current price for whatever it is in demmand.

                  Look, I understand NoBan's argument, he thinks Landry is a poor player, and if he is right, then he is overpaid, because, presumably, since NoBan believes Fields is not very good, it is logically consistent for him to believe we could have spent the money in a better way.

                  I think that NoBan's argument for why he thinks Fields is a poor payer is weak and unconvincing, and I am more convinced by analysysts who use advanced stats to show that Fields is actually a really good player, but non-the-less, if NoBad is right that fields is poor, he is likely also right that Fields is overpaid.

                  However, all you people attempting to create some metaphysical interpretation of value that is somehow not based on real world supply and demmand are making logically inconsistent arguments.

                  Landry Fields price can not be judged against the salaries of other basketball players playing in the NBA anymore that it can be judged against fire fighters or porn stars, it can only be judged by how esle Totonto in particular could have spend the money.

                  If you believe, like I do, that Landry is a talented, young player who fits positional need and coaching style perfectly, then you must be happy with the acquisition at the price paid because that is the only price that we could have acquired this player, if we offered him a smaller contract he would have either not signed, or NY would have matched.

                  The only logical argument is that Toronto could have gotten someone better, which I don't believe.

                  Look at it this way, the Lowry acquisition cost us a draft pick. Now I love that acquisition too, but when the time comes to lose that draft pick it will hurt to watch a player we could have had drafted by another team.

                  If you belive Fields is a good player, then what's the downside to the Fields deal? Do you really believe having him under contracy is going to hinder significant future moves? I don't think so. Getting a player that fits the team and makes it better for only money, without giving up daft picks or equally valuable players is a coup. IMO, It's a great move.

                  And we are talking more or less a league average contract here, so it's not like this is a cap-crippling deal.


                  • #39
                    Quirk wrote: View Post
                    ...And we are talking more or less a league average contract here, so it's not like this is a cap-crippling deal.
                    Hey Quirk. Is this the first time since the old Alt-Rap days that i have agreed with you?


                    • #40
                      Look. Landry Fields IS overpaid, but reason being he was a restricted free agent, elaborating on the point Matt made, it's the nature of free agency. ESPECIALLY being he was a restricted one.

                      For what Fields has shown, and capable of doing, so far, 6$ million is a stretch. A guy that rebounds well, plays great defense, team-mindset offensively, average shooter, great character. He is a very good complimentary player in this league, but from what he's shown in his first two seasons, is he really worth 6$ million? At his age, and experience in the league, by league standards, he should really still be on that rookie scale contract worth 2-3$ million.
                      Twitter: @ReubenJRD • NBA, Raptors writer for Daily Hive Vancouver, Toronto.


                      • #41
                        RaptorReuben wrote: View Post
                        Landry Fields IS overpaid, but reason being he was a restricted free agent, elaborating on the point Matt made, it's the nature of free agency. ESPECIALLY being he was a restricted one.
                        Again someone arguing that market price is overpaying.



                        • #42
                          Puffer wrote: View Post
                          Hey Quirk. Is this the first time since the old Alt-Rap days that i have agreed with you?

                          (too old, can't remember)


                          • #43
                            Quirk wrote: View Post
                            Again someone arguing that market price is overpaying.

                            I'm not sure he's arguing that necessarily. The nature of restricted free agency isn't a secret - most teams knowingly tack on an extra 15-20% of what they would expect the player to get on the open market to the offer sheet as a deterrent for their original team to match. Whether you buy into the theory that Fields was signed to kneecap the Knicks chances of landing Nash or not, it was pretty clear that the Raptors were adamant that New York didn't match the deal. I think a reasonable deduction to take from that is that they paid more for Fields than what he would have received otherwise. I'm not sure why the Fields supporters are getting so defensive. No one is saying (except for NoBan) that it's a terrible deal or that it's a tragic misuse of assets - I just thought it was somewhat common knowledge that the Raps willingly overspent for him.

                            The other thing I wanted to say is that advanced metrics aren't meant to be used as the sole basis of determining a player's value anymore than regular stats, the 'eye' test, or a single playoff series are. They should all be part of a bigger formula.

                            His advanced numbers are favourable but I think they are more of an indicator that he will be able to earn his salary in Casey's system in the future as opposed to him playing at that level over the past few seasons. Fields lost his shot at various times last year and appeared to struggle with confidence post-Melo. If we get three seasons of that player then it's a bad deal. Am I crazy or hasn't Colangelo basically said that they were convinced Fields would blossom under a new system? Once again I'm reading between the lines and deducting my own conclusions but doesn't that infer that they are overpaying Fields based on his potential?
                            Last edited by Fully; Wed Oct 3, 2012, 09:02 AM.


                            • #44
                              That's bang on.

                              I'd also like to add -- I think the argument that Fields' price can only be judged by how else Toronto could have spent the money is dangerous. Basically what they're saying is that the money paid to a player like Fields is justified because there was no one else of that caliber so we might as well give him this amount of money. Using this logic is how many GMs hogtie their franchises into cap-killing oblivion. This logic leads to guys like Joe Johnson or Eric Gordon becoming max players.

                              Again I'm not saying Landry is excessively overpaid. It's a very manageable contract. But using the logic that Landry Fields' contract is "market price" based on not having an alternative, will run an NBA franchise straight into the ground. This is how meddling players like Tyrus Thomas, Kris Humphries, Corey Maggette, Charlie Villanueva, Richard Jefferson, Hedo Turkoglu, Marcus Thornton have/had their hideous contracts. Heck these types of contracts could be the real reason the Amnesty clause exists. They had to create a provision in the CBA to erase stupid errors caused by GMs who didn't understand the concept of market value.

                              Tying yourself down to 3-5 year contract can kill you. There will be other players. In some cases even a franchise player is just not worth overpaying. I guess in that case it's more debatable based on fit, age, etc, etc.. Is Joe Johnson worth his contract? I sure don't think so. But Atlanta thought he was and they paid what they felt was "market price". They overpaid him big time. I still think Landry Fields is a Raptor because of a screwup. Maybe *hopefully* that works out for us.

                              The Brooklyn Nets are a great example of a team that have ridiculous contracts for both franchise (Joe Johnson) players and role (Kris Humphries) players. They have an $85M payroll (3rd in the league?) and they probably won't reach the conference finals. This time next year they'll have an $88M payroll and won't be able to make many (if any) changes to improve their roster.
                              your pal,


                              • #45
                                tkfu wrote: View Post
                                It seems to be the go-to blurb for most media articles that start talking about Landry: "despite his outsized contract offer...", "...who was overpaid by the Toronto Raptors this summer...", "...will have to elevate his game to match his contract." These are all quotes from recent mainstream media articles about the raps.

                                The thing is, the premise is flawed. Landry Fields didn't get a big contract. It pays him 6.25 million per year(flat, no increases) for three years. For 2009-2010 (the last NBA season I could find the data for) the mid-level exception, which is based on the league's calculation of the average NBA salary, was just north of 5.85 million. Even if growth is only 3% per year for the next 3 years, a very conservative estimate, by the time we hit the third year of his contract he'll have a below average NBA salary.

                                Now, if you want to argue that Landry Fields is a drastically below-average NBA player and that's why you think he's overpaid, that's fine. (I'm gonna respectfully disagree with you on that one, but everyone's got a right to their opinions.) But what I see way too much of is, "Yeah, he's pretty good, but we're paying him way too much." If he's pretty good, or even at the level of 'mediocre starter', we're paying him almost exactly the right amount. Over the course of the deal, we'll be paying an average salary to a player who is a little above average right now, and certainly has the potential to be better than that (if he bounces back to something more like his rookie numbers.)
                                He's "overpaid" because of the $8.5M in the last year. That wouldn't be present if this deal wasn't partially about taking the Knicks out of the Nash sweepstakes. This is what is getting to people.