What did we get?

[frosgrim]

The graph was produced using current contract vs. last year's production? If so, that doesn't take into account what you give a player a new contract for. You pay them based on expected level of production (+/- market factors, age, and team needs). I really don't find that graph useful or illuminating. Do it once all pleyers involved have played several seasons on their new deals.

[NineOhTheRino]

What you got is another mentally weak player.

[Diesel]

The graph was produced using current contract vs. last year's production? If so, that doesn't take into account what you give a player a new contract for. You pay them based on expected level of production (+/- market factors, age, and team needs). I really don't find that graph useful or illuminating. Do it once all pleyers involved have played several seasons on their new deals.

That's a cop out fros.

You don't give a person a deal based on what you think he will do without considering what he has already done.

That's why a rookie cap was put in place in the first place. It was ridiculous that Milwaukee signed Big Dog to a 100 Million dollar deal. However, that's the thinking that you say should be followed. NO. The first four years for a player is the time when they should PROVE their worth. Some don't prove much, some do. However, after 4 years, a GM has a good idea of what his players worth is. After 4 years, Potential leaves the room in contract negotiations. You honestly can't look at a guy like Channing Frye and say he's 6'11, 250lbs and he has the potential to be a great player in this league, let's give him 10 Million dollars per to play for us. No no... You have to look at what a player HAS DONE to establish his value in contract negotiation.

[frosgrim]

That's a cop out fros.

You don't give a person a deal based on what you think he will do without considering what he has already done.

That's why a rookie cap was put in place in the first place. It was ridiculous that Milwaukee signed Big Dog to a 100 Million dollar deal. However, that's the thinking that you say should be followed. NO. The first four years for a player is the time when they should PROVE their worth. Some don't prove much, some do. However, after 4 years, a GM has a good idea of what his players worth is. After 4 years, Potential leaves the room in contract negotiations. You honestly can't look at a guy like Channing Frye and say he's 6'11, 250lbs and he has the potential to be a great player in this league, let's give him 10 Million dollars per to play for us. No no... You have to look at what a player HAS DONE to establish his value in contract negotiation.

Using D speach:

NO IT ISN'T

You play a player based on what production you expect them to give. Its really that simple. Some players are established and you pay them that rate. Others are acknowledged to be still developing and they are paid to that. EX: Did Memphis make the offer to Smith based just on current production, or was it a compound of what he projects to give them? Likewise the Hawks matched using that as well. The examples are lenghty here.

Second, in looking at that trend line. There is no way to say that a player is above or below the line, because that is a smoothed line based on four data points. You have to show there is a statiscal difference in production. With the few data points used, your significance level needs to be at 0.01 for me to accept the differences.

[Diesel]

Using D speach:

NO IT ISN'T

You play a player based on what production you expect them to give. Its really that simple. Some players are established and you pay them that rate. Others are acknowledged to be still developing and they are paid to that. EX: Did Memphis make the offer to Smith based just on current production, or was it a compound of what he projects to give them? Likewise the Hawks matched using that as well. The examples are lenghty here.

Second, in looking at that trend line. There is no way to say that a player is above or below the line, because that is a smoothed line based on four data points. You have to show there is a statiscal difference in production. With the few data points used, your significance level needs to be at 0.01 for me to accept the differences.

Cloudy example there. Smith was one of the leaders in blocked shots. He was also one of the more athletic PFs playing the game. And he was also a 17 ppg, 8 rpg, 3 apg PF. I'm sure that all of that figured in when they started their negotiations.

Had Josh just been a 5 ppg 3 rpg, 1 apg Pf who blocked shots (ala Solo) he wouldn't have gotten the amount that he got... even if he had the same potential he has now.

That's the simplicity of it.

There are lots of guys with great potential who don't get a big second contract because they didn't show enough during their first contract to warrant it.

Chauncey Billups was a 12 point, 5.5 asist, 2.8 rpg player when he was at Minny. His second contract was 5 years ~28+ Million dollars. Potential says he is a 6'3 PG who can run an offense. However, he was paid this meager contract. Why do you think that was the case? BTW, we paid Speedy almost as much over the same period.

[exodus]

Cloudy example there. Smith was one of the leaders in blocked shots. He was also one of the more athletic PFs playing the game. And he was also a 17 ppg, 8 rpg, 3 apg PF. I'm sure that all of that figured in when they started their negotiations.

Had Josh just been a 5 ppg 3 rpg, 1 apg Pf who blocked shots (ala Solo) he wouldn't have gotten the amount that he got... even if he had the same potential he has now.

That's the simplicity of it.

There are lots of guys with great potential who don't get a big second contract because they didn't show enough during their first contract to warrant it.

Chauncey Billups was a 12 point, 5.5 asist, 2.8 rpg player when he was at Minny. His second contract was 5 years ~28+ Million dollars. Potential says he is a 6'3 PG who can run an offense. However, he was paid this meager contract. Why do you think that was the case? BTW, we paid Speedy almost as much over the same period.

$5.6 million per year was a much bigger deal back then because the salary cap was about $40 million. The cap is $58 million now.

[Vol4ever]

I added in Ariza and Artest. Both about 6.8 Million and 15.5 and 15.6 PER respectively. It changed the chart but it still says that according to the trendline: Gooden and Charlie V. are underpaid and Marvin and Odom are overpaid.

As far as Charlie V. as a player. I think that his on-court abilities showed this past year. He was a much better player than anyone could have conceived from previous years. If you want to talk about "stepping up" CV and RS stepped up (even if they went nowhere).

So with your analysis you would rather have Gooden and Charlive V over Odom and Marvin? It is my understanding that the problem with Gooden is not his game but his attitude (don't have anything to back that up just hearsay). In the case of Charlie V he is a SF on a PF body and he is soft. Marvin on the other hand played power forward at a high level when Smoove was injured.

Marvin has the skillset and is a very good talent, many teams around the league would love to have him.

I am really happy Sund got the deal done, no lets go Joe Smith signed.

[Diesel]

So with your analysis you would rather have Gooden and Charlive V over Odom and Marvin?

No. That's not even the conversation. I was trying to develop a relative value for Sfs chart. The outcome in my admittedly limited pooling is that of the Sfs and Sf types listed, Marvin and Odom were overpaid and Charlie V. and Gooden were underpaid based on their PER. You can have whatever bias that you like and with more Sf types added, I'm sure that the trendline will change too. However, that's what I have thus far.

[Diesel]

$5.6 million per year was a much bigger deal back then because the salary cap was about $40 million. The cap is $58 million now.

Actually, it's just the opposite. In the previous CBA, there was no luxury tax. SO 5.6 Million was nothing.

[exodus]

Actually, it's just the opposite. In the previous CBA, there was no luxury tax. SO 5.6 Million was nothing.

$5.6 million was 14% of the cap. Once the cap is reached all a team can offer is the MLE.