tlongII
01-11-2012, 09:25 PM
http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2012/01/11/tempting-to-blame-new-cba-as-gerald-wallace-puts-trail-blazers-in-a-bind/?sct=nba_bf2_a3
http://sinbapointforward.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/gerald.jpg
Gerald Wallace has reportedly told the Trail Blazers that he plans to opt out of his deal and enter free agency.
Gerald Wallace has a player option to remain in Portland next season, but he’s going to become a free agent instead, according to Jason Quick of The Oregonian. The decision makes obvious financial sense for Wallace, but his move raises interesting (if overblown) questions about the new collective bargaining agreement and puts the Trail Blazers in a difficult position.
Wallace is a fantastic two-way player. But he’s almost 30, and with a game built on speed, tenacity and quickness, it’s fair to ask how his game will change with age. The track record for wing players in their 30s is not encouraging.
First, the particulars. Wallace’s option is worth $9.5 million next season. Various reports list the value at $11.4 million, but the reliable ShamSports and two other sources I spoke with today confirmed the $9.5 million figure, which doesn’t include some bonuses listed as “unlikely.” Under the new CBA, Wallace has two basic options:
1. Sign a contract extension. He could do that now, or he could exercise his $9.5 million option for next season and sign an extension then. Regardless, the new rules limit the length of extensions to four seasons in total, including any years left on a player’s current deal at the moment he signs the extension. For Wallace, that means an extension could carry him through 2014-15 at the longest.
Also, the starting annual salary of that extension would be limited to 107.5 percent of what Wallace makes now (about $10.2 million in the first season).
Under the old CBA, that extension could have been one season longer. This will lead some to wonder if the new CBA might actually make it harder for teams to bring back players in Wallace’s situation. We’ll get to that shortly.
2. Opt out of his contract, become a free agent and sign a totally new deal. This path offers Wallace more money and more years, at least in theory. The Blazers, who have Wallace’s Bird Rights, could offer him a five-year contract — one that would run through 2016-17, or two years beyond the longest possible extension he could sign now. Rival teams could offer Wallace only a new four-year deal, but even that contract would run through 2015-16 — one season longer than the longest possible extension Wallace could sign.Going into free agency also breaks the link between Wallace’s old salary and his new one. He’d be eligible for anything up the maximum salary, equal in his case to 35 percent of the salary cap — perhaps as much as $20 million annually. (No, he won’t get that. Relax, people.)
So Wallace is going to make the perfectly reasonable decision to opt out, enter free agency and see what’s out there. It’s tempting to blame the new CBA for this, but tread carefully. The old deal carried the same basic structure, with players eligible to receive five- or six-year deals as free agents but “only” five-year extensions – including years remaining on a player’s pre-extension deal. The new CBA basically cut the length of every possible contract in this scenario by one year, keeping the gap between extension and new contract the same. It also cut possible raise amounts across the board.
Still, I wonder if the gap feels bigger now that all contracts are shorter. That was among ownership’s central goals of the lockout unpleasantness, after all — to limit the overall length of contracts so that it will be harder for an unproductive player to become a salary albatross. Maybe the certainty of an extension signed now just isn’t worth it for a player in Wallace’s position.
Might it cost Portland here? Locking up Wallace to what would in effect be a three-year extension (under the old rules) with an average annual salary in the $10.5 million range might have been the best possible outcome for Portland, which has almost no long-term salary beyond LaMarcus Aldridge and Wesley Matthews. (Nicolas Batum, who plays the same position as Wallace, will be a restricted free agent after this season, which further complicates this whole issue.) Wallace would be 34 at the end of that deal, meaning the extension would cover only Wallace’s early 30s — a period in which quality players can remain quite productive before a larger drop-off comes later. Wallace could well play up to that kind of salary at age 33 or 34.
No extension based on Wallace’s current salary would offer the bonanza potential of a team using a huge chunk of cap space on him in free agency, but an extension does bring security. Perhaps the risk/reward calculus changes a bit if you cut that extension by a year, even if you slice the maximum free-agent contract by the same amount. We’re all going to learn as we go — players, agents, coaches, general managers and writers.
Back to Wallace: Go beyond age 33 and 34 at big money, and you’re getting into dangerous territory. As mentioned above, Wallace has a ton of skills, but outside shooting isn’t one of them. He’s average at best in that regard for a wing player, and shooting is one skill we know ages well. Wallace’s smarts as a cutter, passer and defender will always be there, but you never know how productive a player is going to be in his mid-30s — especially a player whose value derives in part from his ability to swing between both forward positions and play each of them well.
This was going to be an issue for Portland regardless, and its early emergence as a possible contender complicates things further. Perhaps the team was ready three weeks ago to unload Wallace in exchange for draft picks as part of a three-way Dwight Howard trade, as ESPN.com reported. That would have made sense, given Wallace’s age and Portland’s apparent status as a solid playoff team but nothing more.
Now? This is a complex decision for the Blazers.
http://sinbapointforward.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/gerald.jpg
Gerald Wallace has reportedly told the Trail Blazers that he plans to opt out of his deal and enter free agency.
Gerald Wallace has a player option to remain in Portland next season, but he’s going to become a free agent instead, according to Jason Quick of The Oregonian. The decision makes obvious financial sense for Wallace, but his move raises interesting (if overblown) questions about the new collective bargaining agreement and puts the Trail Blazers in a difficult position.
Wallace is a fantastic two-way player. But he’s almost 30, and with a game built on speed, tenacity and quickness, it’s fair to ask how his game will change with age. The track record for wing players in their 30s is not encouraging.
First, the particulars. Wallace’s option is worth $9.5 million next season. Various reports list the value at $11.4 million, but the reliable ShamSports and two other sources I spoke with today confirmed the $9.5 million figure, which doesn’t include some bonuses listed as “unlikely.” Under the new CBA, Wallace has two basic options:
1. Sign a contract extension. He could do that now, or he could exercise his $9.5 million option for next season and sign an extension then. Regardless, the new rules limit the length of extensions to four seasons in total, including any years left on a player’s current deal at the moment he signs the extension. For Wallace, that means an extension could carry him through 2014-15 at the longest.
Also, the starting annual salary of that extension would be limited to 107.5 percent of what Wallace makes now (about $10.2 million in the first season).
Under the old CBA, that extension could have been one season longer. This will lead some to wonder if the new CBA might actually make it harder for teams to bring back players in Wallace’s situation. We’ll get to that shortly.
2. Opt out of his contract, become a free agent and sign a totally new deal. This path offers Wallace more money and more years, at least in theory. The Blazers, who have Wallace’s Bird Rights, could offer him a five-year contract — one that would run through 2016-17, or two years beyond the longest possible extension he could sign now. Rival teams could offer Wallace only a new four-year deal, but even that contract would run through 2015-16 — one season longer than the longest possible extension Wallace could sign.Going into free agency also breaks the link between Wallace’s old salary and his new one. He’d be eligible for anything up the maximum salary, equal in his case to 35 percent of the salary cap — perhaps as much as $20 million annually. (No, he won’t get that. Relax, people.)
So Wallace is going to make the perfectly reasonable decision to opt out, enter free agency and see what’s out there. It’s tempting to blame the new CBA for this, but tread carefully. The old deal carried the same basic structure, with players eligible to receive five- or six-year deals as free agents but “only” five-year extensions – including years remaining on a player’s pre-extension deal. The new CBA basically cut the length of every possible contract in this scenario by one year, keeping the gap between extension and new contract the same. It also cut possible raise amounts across the board.
Still, I wonder if the gap feels bigger now that all contracts are shorter. That was among ownership’s central goals of the lockout unpleasantness, after all — to limit the overall length of contracts so that it will be harder for an unproductive player to become a salary albatross. Maybe the certainty of an extension signed now just isn’t worth it for a player in Wallace’s position.
Might it cost Portland here? Locking up Wallace to what would in effect be a three-year extension (under the old rules) with an average annual salary in the $10.5 million range might have been the best possible outcome for Portland, which has almost no long-term salary beyond LaMarcus Aldridge and Wesley Matthews. (Nicolas Batum, who plays the same position as Wallace, will be a restricted free agent after this season, which further complicates this whole issue.) Wallace would be 34 at the end of that deal, meaning the extension would cover only Wallace’s early 30s — a period in which quality players can remain quite productive before a larger drop-off comes later. Wallace could well play up to that kind of salary at age 33 or 34.
No extension based on Wallace’s current salary would offer the bonanza potential of a team using a huge chunk of cap space on him in free agency, but an extension does bring security. Perhaps the risk/reward calculus changes a bit if you cut that extension by a year, even if you slice the maximum free-agent contract by the same amount. We’re all going to learn as we go — players, agents, coaches, general managers and writers.
Back to Wallace: Go beyond age 33 and 34 at big money, and you’re getting into dangerous territory. As mentioned above, Wallace has a ton of skills, but outside shooting isn’t one of them. He’s average at best in that regard for a wing player, and shooting is one skill we know ages well. Wallace’s smarts as a cutter, passer and defender will always be there, but you never know how productive a player is going to be in his mid-30s — especially a player whose value derives in part from his ability to swing between both forward positions and play each of them well.
This was going to be an issue for Portland regardless, and its early emergence as a possible contender complicates things further. Perhaps the team was ready three weeks ago to unload Wallace in exchange for draft picks as part of a three-way Dwight Howard trade, as ESPN.com reported. That would have made sense, given Wallace’s age and Portland’s apparent status as a solid playoff team but nothing more.
Now? This is a complex decision for the Blazers.