Pelicans & Asik are talking new deal (deal is done-- 5/60)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

Yeah, and maybe they were. But with RoLo, Koufos, Monroe, etc. still on the market, I don't believe Asik was atop anybody's list - and definitely not for that money.

Now, this could have been a combo deal to appease AD (same agent) or Dell was scared to risk it for some other reason. But I just feel a master negotiator plays this differently and comes out with a better deal. Again, I am not saying F, just C- because I think it is below what the average expected outcome should have been.

---

In a vacuum, I can certainly live with this deal. My concern is more long term and a perceived inability for Dell to play hardball. I guess as a Saints fan, I'm spoiled by Loomis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkHornet

In a vacuum, I can certainly live with this deal. My concern is more long term and a perceived inability for Dell to play hardball. I guess as a Saints fan, I'm spoiled by Loomis.

---

Loomis has overpaid several guys big deals in regrettable fashion. He's also let the wrong guys walk by not paying them. Also, comparing a NFL and NBA GM's negotiating strategy is apples and oranges, as they play by completely different rules.

Dell is now perceived as having the inability to play hardball and is a soft negotiator? LMAO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saintsinNO

Loomis has overpaid several guys big deal in regrettable fashion. He's also let the wrong guys walk by not paying them. Also, comparing a NFL and NBA GM's negotiating strategy is apples and oranges, as they play by completely different rules.

Dell is now perceived as having the inability to play hardball and is a soft negotiator? LMAO.

---

I suppose my statement reads a little more definitive than I meant it to be. I don't know that he's a soft negotiator. It's just a concern. Hopefully unfounded, because I generally like the moves Dell makes. I'm simply saying, I hope that Dell is willing to use leverage he has at his disposal if he has it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saintsinNO

Loomis has overpaid several guys big deals in regrettable fashion. He's also let the wrong guys walk by not paying them. Also, comparing a NFL and NBA GM's negotiating strategy is apples and oranges, as they play by completely different rules.

Dell is now perceived as having the inability to play hardball and is a soft negotiator? LMAO.

---

HOT TAKES!!, LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkHornet

I suppose my statement reads a little more definitive than I meant it to be. I don't know that he's a soft negotiator. It's just a concern. Hopefully unfounded, because I generally like the moves Dell makes. I'm simply saying, I hope that Dell is willing to use leverage he has at his disposal if he has it.

---

Oh ok, I misread then. To play devil's advocate, the alternative risk is alienating a player that wants to be here and he goes and leaves for even less money. MM is working under the assumption that if Asik were to garner interest from other teams, that would only serve to set his contract value, but in actuality, it means you potentially (and likely IMO) lose him. Nothing says that bad negotiations don't lead him to take less money elsewhere. Not having to risk that is worth something. Not to mention, if we are trying to become a place people want to go, you want Dell to be known as a fair guy, not just a hard negotiator; front office reputations are huge when it comes to that. If you don't open the door, the guy can't leave; that's what Dell did here for a fair price.

Simply put, to say that a guy may only be worth $8mil/year to another team and that's what we should've paid him is way over-simplified and just not the way negotiations work. There is no way that, all factors considered, Asik's deal is a C-, particularly from a guy who has maintained that there is no other realistic alternative. Doesn't equate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

Here's my thing. Another possibly bad deal doesn't make our bad deal better - and I see many justifying it by pointing out other deals.

Again, I don't think it is a terrible deal, but in all honesty, do people think there was another team out there offering 4/42 that we had to top? Obviously, none of us can know, but what does your gut tell you?

I just think that with patience, Dell could have secured a shorter deal, maybe even for less annually. Again, I can't know but we are all just posting our opinions here.

What is done is done, and I do still think Asik can live up to the value of this contract, but I can not agree that we paid market value of him at this current point because I simply do not believe he had any similar offers out there. That is my issue, and it can't be proven or disproven, but it is my one issue with this deal.

---

I have no idea whether there were other suitors. I could see any of the following potentially holding interest in Asik:

Celtics: Playoff team with tons of space and a terrible front court
Bucks: Playoff team with cap space, starting Zaza Pachulia at center
Knicks: Tons of cap space, and likely to miss out on LMA and Monroe; Asik could be a plan C kind of guy
Mavericks: Lost Chandler and likely to miss out on DeAndre Jordan and LMA; Asik could be a plan D kind of guy
Lakers: Tons of cap space, and likely to miss out on LMA, DeAndre Jordan, and Cousins; Asik could be a plan D kind of guy

Maybe none of those teams ever held interest. We'll never know. But all it takes is one interested team to start a bidding war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saintsinNO

Oh ok, I misread then. To play devil's advocate, the alternative risk is alienating a player that wants to be here and he goes and leaves for even less money. MM is working under the assumption that if Asik were to garner interest from other teams, that would only serve to set his contract value, but in actuality, it means you potentially (and likely IMO) lose him. Not having to risk that is worth something. Not to mention, if we are trying to become a place people want to go, you want Dell to be known as a fair guy, not just a hard negotiator; front office reputations are huge when it comes to that. If you don't open the door, the guy can't leave; that's what Dell did here for a fair price.

---

Yeah that's how I see this. Maybe Asik doesn't get as long of a contract elsewhere but maybe he does get a 2yr/24m deal and then hits FA again after the huge cap spike. Asik's agent could have easily said he would take a shorter deal for more money elsewhere.

When you combine it all with the fact that Dell really wanted that non-guaranteed 5th year to be able to bring in a big piece later it really is a fair market contract.

It really feels like people talking themselves into something happening and then real life happens and it didn't match up with their dream so it's a bad move. "Asik is our only realistic option." *signs Asik* "Bad deal." Lol. I'm really confused because it seems like nearly all of the people who were anti Asik have seen the contracts being thrown around and realized it's a fine deal. But the person who defended Asik against all of them is having a bigger issue with the actual deal.

Agree 100%....I didn't hear his name mentioned by any of the other 29 teams as a potential FA signing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

Here's my thing. Another possibly bad deal doesn't make our bad deal better - and I see many justifying it by pointing out other deals.

Again, I don't think it is a terrible deal, but in all honesty, do people think there was another team out there offering 4/42 that we had to top? Obviously, none of us can know, but what does your gut tell you?

I just think that with patience, Dell could have secured a shorter deal, maybe even for less annually. Again, I can't know but we are all just posting our opinions here.

What is done is done, and I do still think Asik can live up to the value of this contract, but I can not agree that we paid market value of him at this current point because I simply do not believe he had any similar offers out there. That is my issue, and it can't be proven or disproven, but it is my one issue with this deal.

---

I like Asik in an "open" system.. he did real good in houston in space. I think he'll justify his contract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcenter

Agree 100%....I didn't hear his name mentioned by any of the other 29 teams as a potential FA signing.

---

I think Asik could have been a plan C or D for some teams, after the LMA/DeAndre/Monroe dominoes fall. It's possible Dell wanted to sign Asik before teams became desperate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcenter

Agree 100%....I didn't hear his name mentioned by any of the other 29 teams as a potential FA signing.

---

So does that mean Ajinca was an overpay as well? We didn't hear his name and he got 5m/yr. Was Cole an overpay even offering the QO? We haven't heard him mentioned at all.

Maybe we didn't hear names because the player WANTED to sign with us and so he didn't put his name out there as a FA. He acted on good faith that we would get a deal done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greewe

I think Asik could have been a plan C or D for some teams, after the LMA/DeAndre/Monroe dominoes fall. It's possible Dell wanted to sign Asik before teams became desperate.

---

Good point. I certainly see a possibility when a team that loses out on their target or their current starter begins to look around and might be more willing to overpay Asik. So, even if technically there were no teams vying for him now, there could have been later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

Yeah that's how I see this. Maybe Asik doesn't get as long of a contract elsewhere but maybe he does get a 2yr/24m deal and then hits FA again after the huge cap spike. Asik's agent could have easily said he would take a shorter deal for more money elsewhere.

When you combine it all with the fact that Dell really wanted that non-guaranteed 5th year to be able to bring in a big piece later it really is a fair market contract.

It really feels like people talking themselves into something happening and then real life happens and it didn't match up with their dream so it's a bad move. "Asik is our only realistic option." *signs Asik* "Bad deal." Lol. I'm really confused because it seems like nearly all of the people who were anti Asik have seen the contracts being thrown around and realized it's a fine deal. But the person who defended Asik against all of them is having a bigger issue with the actual deal.

---

Exactly. The long and short of it is Dell got a starting center who is a good rebounder and solid defended for the 18th overall pick in a weak draft for probably about 10% of the cap. Asik leaving would cost us way more money than Asik staying. It's a good deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

Yeah, and maybe they were. But with RoLo, Koufos, Monroe, etc. still on the market, I don't believe Asik was atop anybody's list - and definitely not for that money.

Now, this could have been a combo deal to appease AD (same agent) or Dell was scared to risk it for some other reason. But I just feel a master negotiator plays this differently and comes out with a better deal. Again, I am not saying F, just C- because I think it is below what the average expected outcome should have been.

---

How much do u think asik is worth paying per year?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HornetGuru

How much do u think asik is worth paying per year?

---

I think MM has said its the 4th year he has an issue with not the amount.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saintsinNO

Oh ok, I misread then. To play devil's advocate, the alternative risk is alienating a player that wants to be here and he goes and leaves for even less money. MM is working under the assumption that if Asik were to garner interest from other teams, that would only serve to set his contract value, but in actuality, it means you potentially (and likely IMO) lose him. Nothing says that bad negotiations don't lead him to take less money elsewhere. Not having to risk that is worth something. Not to mention, if we are trying to become a place people want to go, you want Dell to be known as a fair guy, not just a hard negotiator; front office reputations are huge when it comes to that. If you don't open the door, the guy can't leave; that's what Dell did here for a fair price.

Simply put, to say that a guy may only be worth $8mil/year to another team and that's what we should've paid him is way over-simplified and just not the way negotiations work. There is no way that, all factors considered, Asik's deal is a C-, particularly from a guy who has maintained that there is no other realistic alternative. Doesn't equate.

---

Certainly, I've considered that this is the reason for it. If it is, I say "Bravo!" to Dell and I respect doing business that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

I think MM has said its the 4th year he has an issue with not the amount.

---

I see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcenter

Agree 100%....I didn't hear his name mentioned by any of the other 29 teams as a potential FA signing.

---

Which means nothing.

It also seems like Dell had to slight overpay to get him to agree to the non garunteed money

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 504ByrdGang

It also seems like Dell had to slight overpay to get him to agree to the non garunteed money

---

Possibly so. Maybe he could get him for 4yr/40m without it but he really wanted that last non guaranteed year so gives him 4m as a kicker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

Possibly so. Maybe he could get him for 4yr/40m without it but he really wanted that last non guaranteed year so gives him 4m as a kicker.

---

Why is the last non-guaranteed year so important? Is it as a potential trade asset or more to keep him if he really flourishes in the next few years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkHornet

Why is the last non-guaranteed year so important? Is it as a potential trade asset or more to keep him if he really flourishes in the next few years?

---

It's also the year before AD's new deal expires, could have something to do with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

So does that mean Ajinca was an overpay as well? We didn't hear his name and he got 5m/yr. Was Cole an overpay even offering the QO? We haven't heard him mentioned at all.

Maybe we didn't hear names because the player WANTED to sign with us and so he didn't put his name out there as a FA. He acted on good faith that we would get a deal done.

---

Huh? How does a QO have anything to do with this? A team gets a chance at the QO before free agency even begins. Ajinca is a backup C. You would not expect him to be the hottest name in a big free agent market for centers early on. However, starting caliber centers were the hot players in early free agency and Asik was never mentioned. I do think we outbid ourselves with him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkHornet

Why is the last non-guaranteed year so important? Is it as a potential trade asset or more to keep him if he really flourishes in the next few years?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaisingTheBar

It's also the year before AD's new deal expires, could have something to do with it.

---

Both of you seem to be right. MM talked to his source last night and he stated this non guaranteed 5th year was key because it allows us to make a big move the summer before AD's contract expires.

Dell thinking long term on how to keep AD here for good. Being able to trade a 13m non guaranteed contract allows you to take a ton of money and the other team can just cut him and pay nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

I think MM has said its the 4th year he has an issue with not the amount.

---

He said he thought we could get him for 3 years/$27-28 million.