Signs with the Bobcats for the bargain price of $57 million over six years. Rashard Lewis, we'll recall, got a $110 million. And it's true, of course, that if we neglect the fifty percent of the game known as "defense" that Lewis is a slightly better player.
Gerald Wallace Reups
12 Jul 2007 04:34 pm
Comments (48)
Its pretty crazy when you also consider many teams would take Wallace over Lewis straight up. Lewis got an insane deal. If Wallace can stay healthy, thats a great deal for Charlotte. They'll be an interesting team to watch next year, maybe even a darkhorse to come out of the east if Felton can step up at the point.
Wallace is better at basically every aspect of the game except Lewis is a better shooter than him. I guess Orlando thinks shooting is worth $53 million dollars.
It also explains why they drafted Reddick.
When you have Dwight Howard on the inside, and you want to build your team around him, shooting is worth a lot.
Christ, I sound like Petey.
Christ, I sound like Petey.
Not unless you explain that overpaying Lewis makes sense because in five years you'll have an expiring contract for a worthless player for which other teams will offer you their jewels.
Lewsi is slightly over paid.
Wallace is seriously underpaid, how did the Bobcats get him to sign so far below market value?
Wallace is seriously underpaid, how did the Bobcats get him to sign so far below market value?
Probably a good quetsion for Wallace's agent, Rob Pelinka.
Not unless you explain that overpaying Lewis makes sense because in five years you'll have an expiring contract for a worthless player for which other teams will offer you their jewels.
And then call someone a complete moron for not seeing that.
Wallace is seriously underpaid, how did the Bobcats get him to sign so far below market value?
What would the market value be, just out of curiosity? I'd guess somewhere around $12 million, but it's hard to say because NBA salaries make absolutely no sense. The market is totally dysfunctional. Just check out the list:
http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries.htm
Sorry, that's $12 million per year rather than the $9.5 million per year of this deal.
Michael Redd is at 14 mil; that seems a reasonable number for Wallace I'd take him over Redd
I'd take him over Stephon Marbury, too, but that doesn't make him worth $20 million.
True, I picked Redd as someone probably reasonable paid, 14 mil or so seems the going rate for the tier of SF just below the superstar level.
Bill Simmons said in his latest chat that the Rashard Lewis deal was the worst contract in the history of sports. I'm not a fan of that deal, but Jesus, can anyone express themselves without using the most absurd exaggerations possible anymore?
I should start a blog called "Bullshit Hyperbole Watch". (I could just run Dana Stevens's Ratatouille review in its entirety.)
Yeah, Lewis probably isn't even one of the 10 worst contracts in the NBA.
"Lewsi is slightly over paid.
Wallace is seriously underpaid, how did the Bobcats get him to sign so far below market value?"
Lewis is being hugely overpaid. Michael Redd is marginally overpaid, but he's overpaid for a different reason than Lewis. Redd is getting a bit more than he really should for much the same reason Paul Pierce is getting more from Boston than he probably should. Redd and Pierce were both the best players on their teams, which meant letting them go would be like the team rebuilding from zero all over again, AND they're just good enough that it's very difficult to get equal value back for them in any trade. Lewis is hugely overpaid for the same reason casinos make so much money, people make irrational bets.
Charlotte, on the other hand, looked at how few teams were able to offer a crazy deal to Wallace and bet that none of them would. They could have lost that bet, but I think it was a much smarter wager than betting that Rashard Lewis is going to lead you to the NBA Finals.
Mike
"Wallace is seriously underpaid, how did the Bobcats get him to sign so far below market value?"
Supply and demand.
There was only one team far enough under the cap this year to make a better offer. That team was Orlando, which quite sensibly used their cap space on the significantly more valuable Rashard Lewis.
At that point, Wallace could take Charlotte's offer, or he could go sign a MLE deal for one year somewhere, and try free agency again next year while hoping he didn't get injured or reduce his value.
Similarly, Lewis' contract can be explained by supply and demand.
All that said, I don't think Wallace is "seriously" underpaid. I think he's somewhat underpaid, but not hugely.
-----
As mentioned in previous threads, what confuses me isn't why Wallace signed for that level, but instead why NJ was willing to pay Vince Carter $62m over 4 years when no one else would have been able to offer him more than $8m/yr.
If I were NJ's GM, I'd have offered Vince $45m and dared him to walk. I fail to understand a reasonable scenario where he wouldn't have taken that contract.
-----
And as to Matthew's contention that Lewis isn't really a more valuable player than Wallace, well, I think that's evidence that he doesn't have a particularly firm grasp on the sport.
I understand that it's fashionable to devalue elite scoring ability, but that doesn't mean it's in any way correct.
"Not unless you explain that overpaying Lewis makes sense because in five years you'll have an expiring contract for a worthless player for which other teams will offer you their jewels."
Not my actual reasoning, of course...
The problem with Petey is I can't tell when he's being a caricature of himself and when he's just being himself.
Redd is underpayed. The problem is people don't understand that max contracts affect the once a decade players and the very good all, just not to the same level.
"The problem with Petey is I can't tell when he's being a caricature of himself"
I tend to be pretty straight on the hoops threads. I honestly believe that anyone who thinks Gerald Wallace is as valuable as Rashard Lewis or Michael Redd is essentially clueless about the sport.
One shouldn't misinterpret Petey's pugnaciousness for hyperbole.
However, one should interpret Petey's references to himself in the third person as a bit of a character issue. :)
The problem with Petey is I can't tell when he's being a caricature of himself and when he's just being himself.
No, the problem is that Petey can't either.
Well, "value" depends on context. I think Rashard Lewis is more valuable than Gerald Wallace to the 2007-09 Orlando Magic, because they need a shooter more than they need defense. But what about the 06-07 Sonics? Would they have been any worse with Wallace instead of Lewis? (since they weren't really trying to win, I guess it's beside the point)
Defense is 50% of the game. Anyone who doesn't see that is essentially clueless about the sport.
I have to say, Petey, that I was fully on board when I thought it was $85 mil. for five years, but it's hard for me to believe that Lewis is worth $110 mil. over six years. The signing really does remind me of the Houston signing.
I agree that Simmons is overindulging a bit in his trademark hyperbole, but he's a bit fried on former 'Sonics after Anklegate, a.k.a. the Ray Allen Dumpoff. That said, Petey's argument is— much like Orlando's Lewis deal— completely Rashard-ed.
Petey's argues like an adolescent Christopher Hitchens— he says something blatantly fallacious and throws in a couple non sequiturs to cover it over like a kitten in a litter box. Aww, isn't that cute. He's only useful when it comes to shouting down Al and Steve Sailer and the other lice-eating troglodytes because he debates on their level.
"Defense is 50% of the game. Anyone who doesn't see that is essentially clueless about the sport."
You're talking to someone who thought Bruce Bowen should've been the Finals MVP.
But at the end of the day, teams win when they have a couple of elite offensive players as well as a good team defense. Steve Nash can't defend. But you still need guys like that.
Guys like Timmy who are elite on both sides of the floor are obviously mega-valuable. But they're also rare. Guys who are elite on the offensive end only are still pretty damn valuable.
"I have to say, Petey, that I was fully on board when I thought it was $85 mil. for five years, but it's hard for me to believe that Lewis is worth $110 mil. over six years."
I'm sure Orlando would've preferred the 5yr deal, but given supply and demand, that wasn't an option.
They'll be overpaying the final year or two of the deal, but that's seems a fair tradeoff for assembling a winner around Howard.
One has to look at the Orlando landscape if they hadn't signed Lewis to really understand the rationale. Their only other option would've been to use their cap space on Wallace, and I don't think that would've made nearly as much sense for them.
"The signing really does remind me of the Houston signing."
To repeat my point from above, the deal that really reminds me of the Houston signing is the Vince Carter contract, since the Nets paid far more than anyone else was able to, just as the Knicks did with Houston.
With Lewis, if Orlando hadn't added the 6th year, Lewis wouldn't be a Magicster.
Petey, could you clarify this statement?
I understand that it's fashionable to devalue elite scoring ability, but that doesn't mean it's in any way correct.
Last season Lewis scored 22.4 points per 40 minutes. Wallace averaged 19.8. That's a fairly small gap to associate with the term "elite scoring ability."
But Petey, Lewis isn't an elite scorer. His 22 1/2 points a game are it for him. He plays over 40 minutes a game and between him and Shuttlesworth took all the shots yet he never once topped 40 in a game.
He's a consistent shooter with height and will give you 20 a night. Very nice and an asset to any team. But not elite.
Wallace can dominate games with his athleticism (and can top 40 points in a game). Lewis might be a better fit for Orlando* but he's hardly a better player.
*I honestly didn't see much Orlando last year but everybody is talking about how much Lewis' shooting is going to help Howard -- stop the double teams etc. -- but are teams really doubling Howard when he has the ball on the block and is that why the Magic faded so badly down the stretch? He doesn't seem to have much going in that aspect of the game. Now you might need to double-team him when he goes on the offensive boards.......
"Last season Lewis scored 22.4 points per 40 minutes. Wallace averaged 19.8. That's a fairly small gap to associate with the term "elite scoring ability."
Lewis not only scored more, but did it in a more efficient manner with a notably higher TS%.
But beyond stats, eyeballing the actual players tells me that Lewis has a significantly more unstoppable offensive game, which is a very valuable asset come playoff time when the easy stuff gets taken away.
Small gaps in stats can hide large differences in dominance. And dominance is what makes a player elite.
"are teams really doubling Howard when he has the ball on the block"
Indeed. The scouting report on Howard is that he doesn't have the vision or court-sense to pass out of the double-team.
Once he touches the ball in the post, he gets swarmed.
Most of what drives the irrational deals in the NBA is the pressure to "win now" based on the window of opportunity a given franchise is staring at in a given offseason. Orlando just inked Howard. The pressure to "win now" was too much to resist. They couldn't stomach simply doing nothing, so they bought the best player available. They overpaid in the extreme, but Lewis' relative youth and health means they should have a productive player for nearly the entire contract. That's certainly something.
It really is about supply and demand. If Kobe were available, they would have signed him. If Michael Redd were available, they would have signed him. But alas, only Rashard Lewis was available. And they couldn't nothing, so...
Anyway, it's rediculous for SG to call it the worst contract in sports history. Pro sports are littered with long term deals handed to aging players where it is absolutely guaranteed the player will lose it due to age and injury by the end of the contract. Lewis may never be a truly elite player, but he should be productive throughout the life of the contract. That alone means it will be a better deal than a lot of the contracts we see.
As I have said before, I think this discussion will be rendered irrelevent if Howard doesn't make a marked improvement in his offensive game. He scores an awful lot of points for someone who only gets put backs and dunks. But when it's the fourth quarter and you need a shot, you can't rely on put backs and dunks. And Howards offense was painful to watch last year.
"The pressure to "win now" was too much to resist. They couldn't stomach simply doing nothing, so they bought the best player available. "
It's more rational than that. With the extension to Howard going into effect, this was the only year Orlando was going to have the cap space to sign a top player in free agency.
Their cap space was a use it or lose it proposition. They couldn't "do nothing" for entirely rational reasons.
"But when it's the fourth quarter and you need a shot, you can't rely on put backs and dunks. And Howards offense was painful to watch last year."
I actually think this is precisely why Lewis is a good fit for Orlando.
In late game situations, I think they'll give the ball to Lewis and put Howard on the weak side for offensive rebounding, or to get swung the ball in an advantageous situation if the defense keys on Lewis.
Howard's offensive problems only come into effect when he gets double-teamed, which is why making him the second offensive option should pay dividends.
Historically, Howard gets compared to Moses Malone, who had some of the same weaknesses and strengths. Interestingly, Malone won his only title when paired with a high scoring small forward.
dude, why is any seriously arguing with petey? this is the dude who said if spurs beat the nuggets in round 1 it would be an upset. he's someone who cherry picks stats that strike him as intuitively accurate (TS%) and attacks people who use statistics that strike him as intuitively wrong (basically, everything else). His predictive power is virtually nonexistent (look to previous hoops threads and you'll find plenty of evidence). It's preposterous that petey would accuse anyone of lacking a firm grasp of the sport.
"he's someone who cherry picks stats that strike him as intuitively accurate (TS%)"
Do you have a better way of measuring scoring efficiency than TS%?
I don't think TS% is the holy grail of stats - I think all individual hoops stats need plenty of caveats - but I do find TS% to be a useful touchstone when discussing scoring efficiency.
"His predictive power is virtually nonexistent (look to previous hoops threads and you'll find plenty of evidence)"
You'll find both hits and misses. I'm in the black in my NBA betting at TradeSports, (though not massively) so I'd say my predictive power is better than average.
I do understand that the Berri dittoheads don't like me since I won't buy their pablum.
no, it's not that at all. I have my misgivings about berri and statistical analysis in general. But here's the thing, you say that you don't believe TS% is the holy grail and that it's merely useful but that's how you use it all. If you were honest and not a caustic prick (sort of like berri), you'd acknowledge that it's not patently obvious that rashard lewis is better than gerald wallace. But you are a caustic prick, so you won't.
As mentioned in previous threads, what confuses me isn't why Wallace signed for that level, but instead why NJ was willing to pay Vince Carter $62m over 4 years when no one else would have been able to offer him more than $8m/yr.
If I were NJ's GM, I'd have offered Vince $45m and dared him to walk. I fail to understand a reasonable scenario where he wouldn't have taken
that contract.
Actually this confuses me a bit. I think Carter is overpaid slightly (at most). But Carter is still a better player than Rashard Lewis, and he is getting paid less than Lewis. If NJ had dared Carter to walk, who's to say that Orlando wouldn't have offered a bundle to Carter instead of Lewis. Heck, they could have offered Vince less money than they gave Lewis and gotten a better player.
"If NJ had dared Carter to walk, who's to say that Orlando wouldn't have offered a bundle to Carter instead of Lewis."
If NJ had offered Vince $45m rather than $62m, I agree that there was some chance that they'd have lost Vince. But I think that chance was quite negligible.
Orlando had hinted rather heavily prior to the draft that they weren't interested in Carter. They seem to have a Chicago-like focus on character, and seemed to see Carter as not being their type of guy. In addition, Carter's age fit less well into their long-range plans than Lewis' does.
So, yes, NJ would have faced some small risk that Orlando would've gone after Carter if they'd low-balled him. And they'd also have faced some small risk that Carter would've signed elsewhere at the MLE to spite NJ.
My argument is that both of those risks were negligible enough to make giving Carter a low-ball offer the clearly correct choice, thus creating more tax space for NJ to add other pieces around him. It's not an argument about Vince's talent level or what he's "really" worth. I'm just talking about what the market will bear.
"So, yes, NJ would have faced some small risk that Orlando would've gone after Carter if they'd low-balled him. And they'd also have faced some small risk that Carter would've signed elsewhere at the MLE to spite NJ."
And those risks are the only reason why I'd have made my offer as rich as $45m. I think that if NJ was willing to live dangerously, they'd still likely have gotten Carter's signature at $40m.
Given the incredibly small number of teams comfortably under the cap in any one year, free agency is a feast or famine situation. Check out how Sideshow Bob is almost definitely going to get screwed.
Just to add in the correct caveats, I really do think the Lewis contract is risky for Orlando. Lewis' long 'n' skinny build makes me wonder about his future susceptibility to injury. And even if he stays healthy and productive, he's going to screw up the Magic's tax budget in the last couple years of the contract.
But I think he's more elite than the local consensus, that his talents seem a perfect fit with the Howard and the Magic, that the tax implications are manageable, and that Orlando had unappealing alternatives if they didn't run the risk of inking him.
If Redick pans out, which seems the talk of summer league, I don't see why Orlando shouldn't be able to contend with this core crew.
Most of what drives the irrational deals in the NBA is the pressure to "win now" based on the window of opportunity a given franchise is staring at in a given offseason.
But of course, that's not what Orlando is doing at all. Howard is only 21, and no one in their core is older than 28. They're looking to win over the next decade.
I am undecided on the wisdom of the Lewis signing, but am cautiously optimistic -- I believe he'll compliment Howard extremely well. People underestimate how good Howard will be. Of course if it's possible the Magic could have signed, say Wallace and Darko instead of Lewis, then they made a mistake. But I'm not sure anything like that was ever possible.
If Redick pans out, which seems the talk of summer league, I don't see why Orlando shouldn't be able to contend with this core crew.
Define "pan out". He may be a useful role player this year, but he's no starter on a contender, even in the East.
Define "pan out". He may be a useful role player this year, but he's no starter on a contender, even in the East.
We'll see. Reddick inspires irrational hatred in people. There have been some good players who have had bad rookie years. Reddick can flat out shoot the ball. He could be a starter, even on a contender, depending on the players around him. I see him more as the second shooting guard, particularly given the fact that Rashard Lewis and Jameer Nelson aren't exactly defensive forces, either. But the guy has value. He certainly has a chance to be a better contributor than his pal Shelden Williams.
"Of course if it's possible the Magic could have signed, say Wallace and Darko instead of Lewis, then they made a mistake. But I'm not sure anything like that was ever possible."
If I understand the fine details of capology correctly, (which I very well may not), such a thing wouldn't have been even remotely possible. My guess is that signing both would have taken them more than $5m over the cap.
"(Redick) may be a useful role player this year, but he's no starter on a contender, even in the East."
The summer league buzz on him has been very upbeat. I have no direct observation on the matter, but if the buzz is to be believed, you might be wrong.
Even in a best case scenario, he may still not be ready to play a big role this coming year, of course.
"They'll be overpaying the final year or two of the deal, but that's seems a fair tradeoff for assembling a winner around Howard."
Yeah, cause nothing says "winner" like Rashard Lewis.
Last season, the luxury tax started at 65.42 million dollars. Lewis and Howard's contracts combine to average about 35 million a year. They'll start off paying less than that, but end up paying more. Which means that unless the luxury tax goes up to AT LEAST 80 million dollars in the next 3 to 4 years, Orlando is going to be spending over half their luxury tax space on two players. Spending that on Dwight Howard is one thing. Spending it on a good, not great, scorer who was only the second best player on a horrible team is something else.
Mike
Reddick can flat out shoot the ball. He could be a starter, even on a contender, depending on the players around him.
We'll see. I'm a Magic fan, and a Duke fan, so I hope you're right, but the best I've allowed myself to hope for him is that he turns into Steve Kerr.
Comments closed July 26, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I'm not sure that Lewis is better in all phases of offense. Wallace had a slightly higher assist rate, though more turnovers. He's a far higher percentage shooter (mostly because he went to the basket more, and hence picked up more fouls, though Lewis is a far superior free-throw shooter) and had more offensive rebounds.
Oh, and he's nearly three years younger. The NBA doesn't make a lot of sense sometimes.
Posted by Mac | July 12, 2007 4:44 PM