Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Early FA signings

Expand Messages
  • tajallie@hotmail.com
    Which signing is more overpaid: Nash at $65M for fives years or Camby at $55M-$60M for six. Two 30 year old players, both with some talent but serious
    Message 1 of 9 , Jul 2, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Which signing is more overpaid: Nash at $65M for fives years or Camby
      at $55M-$60M for six. Two 30 year old players, both with some talent
      but serious questions at those types of $$$.
    • bchaikin@aol.com
      Which signing is more overpaid: Nash at $65M for fives years or Camby at $55M-$60M for six. Two 30 year old players, both with some talent but serious
      Message 2 of 9 , Jul 2, 2004
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Which signing is more overpaid: Nash at $65M for fives years or Camby at $55M-$60M for six. Two 30 year old players, both with some talent but serious questions at those types of $$$...

        doesn't matter - it's all Monopoly money anyway...

        (isn't it?)...




      • John Hollinger
        Tough call, but I ll go with Camby because he s guaranteed to miss half the games. I knew Denver would give him a lot of money, but I never dreamed they d give
        Message 3 of 9 , Jul 2, 2004
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Tough call, but I'll go with Camby because he's guaranteed to miss
          half the games. I knew Denver would give him a lot of money, but I
          never dreamed they'd give him five years.

          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, tajallie@h... wrote:
          > Which signing is more overpaid: Nash at $65M for fives years or
          Camby
          > at $55M-$60M for six. Two 30 year old players, both with some
          talent
          > but serious questions at those types of $$$.
        • harlanzo
          ... Camby ... talent ... Camby is a worse deal. He is always injured and they have a bunch of younger guys who can block shots (Elson, Chris Andersen).
          Message 4 of 9 , Jul 3, 2004
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, tajallie@h... wrote:
            > Which signing is more overpaid: Nash at $65M for fives years or
            Camby
            > at $55M-$60M for six. Two 30 year old players, both with some
            talent
            > but serious questions at those types of $$$.

            Camby is a worse deal. He is always injured and they have a bunch
            of younger guys who can block shots (Elson, Chris Andersen).
            Camby's good but this might cost them a chance at KMart.
          • Stephen Greenwell
            Camby is a worse deal. He is always injured and they have a bunch of younger guys who can block shots (Elson, Chris Andersen). Camby s good but this might cost
            Message 5 of 9 , Jul 3, 2004
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Camby is a worse deal.  He is always injured and they have a bunch
              of younger guys who can block shots (Elson, Chris Andersen). 
              Camby's good but this might cost them a chance at KMart.

              Does Martin still want a maximum contract?  That seems like a bit of a stretch.  He's rated as the 12th best PF by PER.  He regarded as a quality defender, but I doubt he's anywhere close to the player that Elton Brand is, who's the third rated PF.

              Camby is a bit lower than Martin in PER, but I'd favor Martin over him too; Martin isn't as injury prone, he's younger, and probably a better defender.  Martin vs. Nash, the distinction isn't as clear in my mind - Nash if it's a short term deal, Martin if it's long-term.  However, I still think it will be a mistake if anyone gives Martin a max-deal, or tries to build a team around him.

              Stephen Greenwell
            • mrintp2000
              ... I d really like to get a handle on when guys peak and start to decline. It seems that things start going downhill rapidly after 30 but I don t have any
              Message 6 of 9 , Jul 3, 2004
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Stephen Greenwell
                <sgre6768@p...> wrote:
                >

                I'd really like to get a handle on when guys peak and start to
                decline. It seems that things start going downhill rapidly after 30
                but I don't have any data to support that.

                Either way I think Nash and Camby are too old and not good enough for
                the money they're getting.
              • harlanzo
                ... wrote:Does Martin still want a maximum contract? That seems like a bit of a stretch. He s rated as the 12th best PF by PER. He regarded
                Message 7 of 9 , Jul 3, 2004
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Stephen Greenwell
                  <sgre6768@p...> wrote:Does Martin still want a maximum contract?
                  That seems like a bit of a stretch. He's rated as the 12th best PF
                  by PER. He regarded as a quality defender, but I doubt he's
                  anywhere close to the player that Elton Brand is, who's the third
                  rated PF.

                  Camby is a bit lower than Martin in PER, but I'd favor Martin over
                  him too; Martin isn't as injury prone, he's younger, and probably a
                  better defender. Martin vs. Nash, the distinction isn't as clear in
                  my mind - Nash if it's a short term deal, Martin if it's long-term.
                  However, I still think it will be a mistake if anyone gives Martin a
                  max-deal, or tries to build a team around him.

                  Stephen Greenwell
                  >


                  I agree KMart isn't a max guy but better to overpay him than Camby
                  (this all depends on how much they gave Camby).
                • Kevin Pelton
                  ... In Nash s specific case, I have these five guys rated as his most comparable players at age 30 (and the only guys I rate particularly similar): John
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jul 4, 2004
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > I'd really like to get a handle on when guys peak and start to
                    > decline. It seems that things start going downhill rapidly after 30
                    > but I don't have any data to support that.

                    In Nash's specific case, I have these five guys rated as his most
                    comparable players at age 30 (and the only guys I rate particularly
                    similar):

                    John Stockton
                    John Lucas
                    Terrell Brandon
                    Brad Davis
                    Mark Price

                    Stockton, of course, played forever. Lucas lasted until 36, but his
                    last year as a regular was at 34, and his last productive year the
                    season before (although I don't think cocaine is a big worry in
                    Nash's case). Brandon's last year came the next year, at 31, because
                    of his leg injury. Davis played through 36, but his last really
                    productive season was 34 (although he and Lucas weren't as good as
                    Nash in the first place). Price, who I subjectively think might be
                    the best comparison, was a regular through his retirement at age 34,
                    but had one year where injuries (can't remember what) limited him to
                    seven games.

                    If you look at the three guys who made it through the course of
                    Nash's new contract, their average minutes played went:

                    30: 2260
                    31: 1868
                    32: 2190
                    33: 1873
                    34: 1991
                    35: 1721
                    36: 1075

                    And their efficiency, adjusted for league average went:

                    30: 120.0
                    31: 115.3
                    32: 115.6
                    33: 117.0
                    34: 115.5
                    35: 111.1
                    36: 103.1

                    Read into that what you will.
                  • mrintp2000
                    Message 9 of 9 , Jul 5, 2004
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- Interesting, thanks

                      In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Pelton" <kpelton08@h...> wrote:
                      > > I'd really like to get a handle on when guys peak and start to
                      > > decline. It seems that things start going downhill rapidly after 30
                      > > but I don't have any data to support that.
                      >
                      > In Nash's specific case, I have these five guys rated as his most
                      > comparable players at age 30 (and the only guys I rate particularly
                      > similar):
                      >
                      > John Stockton
                      > John Lucas
                      > Terrell Brandon
                      > Brad Davis
                      > Mark Price
                      >
                      > Stockton, of course, played forever. Lucas lasted until 36, but his
                      > last year as a regular was at 34, and his last productive year the
                      > season before (although I don't think cocaine is a big worry in
                      > Nash's case). Brandon's last year came the next year, at 31, because
                      > of his leg injury. Davis played through 36, but his last really
                      > productive season was 34 (although he and Lucas weren't as good as
                      > Nash in the first place). Price, who I subjectively think might be
                      > the best comparison, was a regular through his retirement at age 34,
                      > but had one year where injuries (can't remember what) limited him to
                      > seven games.
                      >
                      > If you look at the three guys who made it through the course of
                      > Nash's new contract, their average minutes played went:
                      >
                      > 30: 2260
                      > 31: 1868
                      > 32: 2190
                      > 33: 1873
                      > 34: 1991
                      > 35: 1721
                      > 36: 1075
                      >
                      > And their efficiency, adjusted for league average went:
                      >
                      > 30: 120.0
                      > 31: 115.3
                      > 32: 115.6
                      > 33: 117.0
                      > 34: 115.5
                      > 35: 111.1
                      > 36: 103.1
                      >
                      > Read into that what you will.
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.