Player Movement Thread (Was Free Agency Thread)

[jemagee]

Childress for a fraction of that $70 million,

I'm not in favor of a plan that tries to make josh childress a starting 2 guard and hopes the hawks don't match for a 'fraction' of the 70 million, if you sign him to too low and offer sheet the hawks would be stupid not to match.

The only real ways to get a restricted free agent is to over pay the guy so the team isn't tempted to match that's how i see it

[Skates]

I believe Maggette signed a 5 year/$50MIL deal which has been questioned by many people on ESPN since Maggette's only other offers were for the MLE.

Chris Mullin is the modern day BK.  He can spot talent, but he often sets the market by bidding against himself (see: Foyle, Adonal).  The Maggette deal is practically a sign of restraint compared to Foyle's contract.

Back to potential Iggy deals.  The question is not really one of the market today setting the market value when evaluating whether to match a contract.  It is easy to say it is a market price because that is what the market offered, but the market often has outliers and those are the "market" deals you need to avoid (kind of like buying the stock market last September with a five year retirement outlook).  If any player signs an offer sheet, the evaluation of it has many facets beyond the current market, including the following:

1.  What is the cost of the contract vs. the likely cost in money and other assets to obtain a similar level of productivity from another source?

2.  What is the likelihood that this player/contract can be moved for value fairly equivalent to the player's abilities/contributions in two years (after BYC stops being a problem)?  If the contract will significantly impair the player's trade value as compared to their productivity, then it is a bad contract.  In two years half of the teams in the league will have tons of cap space.  Very few will sign LeBron, Wade, Bosh, Amare, etc.  Iggy's contract, even at $65-70 million total will be attractive to the teams that lose out in FA that year assuming he stays healthy and productive.

3.  How will the contract affect your team's financial flexibility/luxury tax situation vs the player's productivity this year, and for the next three years?

[bebopdeluxe]

I haven't heard of numbers for Childress that are significanty above the MLE...but even if we started him at, say, $6.5 million in year 1, it would be roughly half of what Iggy would get from the Clips...

Pay 50% of Iggy's salary...get (probably) better than 50% of his production - as well as a guy who whose salary wouldn't kill you if he was a 6th man, and a salary that would be tradable (good luck trading Iggy after 2-3 years at a salary of $15 mil per year).

[bebopdeluxe]

Skates:

At the risk of sounding a bit cheeky, you aren't actually positioning Iggy as an acceptable alternative to the bridesmaids of the LeBron, Wade, Bosh, et. al. shopping spree...are you?

Iguodala is NOWHERE near those players - and at over $14 million in year 3 of that 5 year/$70 million deal (and close to $46 million for the last three years of that deal), that is a VERY expensive Plan B for a team to swallow for a player who may very well still be a material step below they guys that you mention.

I would be very cautious if I were a GM thinking of that as a fall-back position of value for Iguodala.

[TheGuiltyParty]

Childress for a fraction of that $70 million,

I'm not in favor of a plan that tries to make josh childress a starting 2 guard and hopes the hawks don't match for a 'fraction' of the 70 million, if you sign him to too low and offer sheet the hawks would be stupid not to match.

The only real ways to get a restricted free agent is to over pay the guy so the team isn't tempted to match that's how i see it

I am FAR more in favor of overpaying Iguodala then letting him walk and giving a contract to Josh Childress. Right now, I have to think Ed is doing the following things...

1) Speaking with Iguodala's and Williams' agents every day

2) Arranging back-up plans in case either negotiation takes a turn for the worse

3) Looking around for a veteran to acquire and improve the roster

[bebopdeluxe]

TGP:

So...you give Iguodala $70 million?

Can't say that I am 100% on board for that...yet.

[Sub]

(good luck trading Iggy after 2-3 years at a salary of $15 mil per year).

When you're talking about significantly investing in players at Iguodala's level or above, I don't think a major consideration would be whether or not you'd be able to trade him in two years.

[DuckyNinja]

I haven't heard of numbers for Childress that are significanty above the MLE...but even if we started him at, say, $6.5 million in year 1, it would be roughly half of what Iggy would get from the Clips...

Pay 50% of Iggy's salary...get (probably) better than 50% of his production - as well as a guy who whose salary wouldn't kill you if he was a 6th man, and a salary that would be tradable (good luck trading Iggy after 2-3 years at a salary of $15 mil per year).

That's just faulty thinking.  Yes, we would say get 65% of the production for 50% of the salary.  But unless you use the other 50% to find at least 35+% of a production boost, that doesn't mean anything, and I'm not sure where you plan on using that other 6ish mil to upgrade.

[bebopdeluxe]

Ducky:

We are going to need a PG no later than next summer - there's one place that we can put the $6 mil.  We need a better outside shooting option than Steve Novak, too...two major pieces we will need by next summer, and only one MLE to deal with it.

It's called "roster flexibility"...we finally had some again - and we used it to get Brand.  If we sign Iggy to a $70 million deal, we are going to lose some of it...and with other holes to fill, I'm not crazy about that.

I really like Iggy - especially at $55-60 million over 5 years...but $70 mil?

I'm not sure I'm down with that.

[TheGuiltyParty]

TGP:

So...you give Iguodala $70 million?

Can't say that I am 100% on board for that...yet.

If you've read this thread for a while, you should know that I don't like that idea at all. That said, I hate the idea of Josh Childress any amount of money hence I would choose overpaying Iguodala between the two poisons.

[bebopdeluxe]

TGP:

I'm not saying that I have a chubby for Childress, either (although it sounds like I like his game - and value relative to Iggy @ $70 mil - more than you do)...but I am just having a MAJOR problem with this thought...

Andre Iguodala - $14 mil a year...

 

[The Sixer Fixer]

TGP:

So...you give Iguodala $70 million?

Can't say that I am 100% on board for that...yet.

If you've read this thread for a while, you should know that I don't like that idea at all. That said, I hate the idea of Josh Childress any amount of money hence I would choose overpaying Iguodala between the two poisons.

I agree with this for the most part.  If the only options are overpay for Andre or sign Childress for something slightly higher than the MLE, I would choose to overypay Andre.  My issues with Iguodala are that I'm ot sure he fits as a long term answer to our SG spot.  I want a shooter there.  Childress is no closer to being a shooter than Iguodala is.  Actually, I think he's a worse option there.  Basically I would not want to tie up cap room on Childress who is an inferior player to Andre IMO.  If we lose Andre, I would go after Ben Gordon way before I would look at Childress.  At least Gordon fills the huge need of a shooter in the starting lineup.

[bebopdeluxe]

Sixer Fixer:

I was just using Childress as an example...I am fine with considering Gordon, Redd or any other option at SG before I give Iggy $70 million.

As a side note...looking at the Bulls RealGM board, the flow there seems to suggest that Deng is in the exact same position as Iguodala is - turned down what now looks to be good money last summer ($57.5 million), and may be scrambling to get paid.  No question that Iguodala had a better season last year, but it does make you wonder why (unless the Clips hit either of these guys with an offer sheet) they think the money is going to be all that much better this summer.  It's not about production - it is about the demand for their services...and the potential buyer of their services.  Unless and until the Clippers sign either of these guys, the Bulls and Sixers would be idiots to give these guys above-market money.

It would be so...so...so Billy King.

[TheGuiltyParty]

Sixer Fixer:

I was just using Childress as an example...I am fine with considering Gordon, Redd or any other option at SG before I give Iggy $70 million.

I'm with 99.9% with our one difference being ANY interest in Josh Childress. I question what Ed's feeling on this is. I imagine Ed has some reservations or else negotiations would be moving on a little quicker than they have.

[Skates]

Skates:

At the risk of sounding a bit cheeky, you aren't actually positioning Iggy as an acceptable alternative to the bridesmaids of the LeBron, Wade, Bosh, et. al. shopping spree...are you?

Iguodala is NOWHERE near those players - and at over $14 million in year 3 of that 5 year/$70 million deal (and close to $46 million for the last three years of that deal), that is a VERY expensive Plan B for a team to swallow for a player who may very well still be a material step below they guys that you mention.

I would be very cautious if I were a GM thinking of that as a fall-back position of value for Iguodala.

At that point in their careers LBJ, Wade and Bosh can grab much larger contracts than the one Iggy could possibly get this year.  Is he a lesser talent than those guys?  Sure, but at the max price he is likely to get this year (and we are talking worst case scenario, not the most likely scenario) his contract should be movable that summer.  The fall backs this year have been guys like Maggette and Childress, Iggy is considerably better than either of those players (Maggette is not as well thought of in the league as his stats might indicate, he is a selfish player who stopped playing D years ago).  My point was that Stefanski, if presented with an offer sheet, needs to evaluate the contract based on questions like the ones I posed.  It is his job to come up with the right answers and no answers can be given until the numbers on any offer sheet are known.  I do think that a lot of teams are scrambling to be under the cap in two summers, that a lot won't get their primary FA target and that a feeding frenzy in the trade market on guys like Iggy may well ensue.  At that point maybe all we need are some good draft choices to replace him based onout team's level of development and need for depth, while other teams will want him because they need immediate improvement (i.e. GM's with their jobs on the line).