Lewis Gets Paid

I think this business of signing Rashard Lewis to a maximum contract is madness. They could use this as an example in a class on the "winner's curse". Cap management matters in this league, a lot. You just can't be throwing that kind of money at a sub-par rebounder who's terrible at defense no matter how good a shooter he is. John Hollinger begs to differ:

Plus, with Billups and Carter intent on re-signing with their respective teams, Lewis was the single best "portable" free agent available. Getting the No. 1 guy rarely fails as a free agent strategy; even if Lewis somehow fails to live up to his Seattle numbers, the Magic still are getting a quality player.

Larry Hughes is laughing all the way to the bank on the basis of this theory.

Comments

Matt,

check it out, one of the assholes who writes for The New Reichstag is babbling on about the dangerous Musselmen and their terroristic ways right now on Tucker Carlson. Tucker, Pat Browshirt Buchanan, and peter "Senior Editor" Beinart, what more could a Phalangist ask for on TV?

What's the old maxim about birds of a feather?

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | July 3, 2007 4:36 PM

Check out the fraud the Sonics are trying to perpetrate against its fans:

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/1511/durantjerseyoffer480nj4.gif

Cute, huh?

Posted by sherifffruitfly | July 3, 2007 4:46 PM

So long as the cap continues to expand, max money is more about ego management than cap management. Plus, who else rebounds or plays D in the East? The C's are going with Allen and Pierce to go all Doug Moe on teams. Orlando wants to do the same. Max money deals aren't the issue, it is the KG quality deals that hamstring teams.

Posted by notchris | July 3, 2007 4:51 PM

Comparing Larry Hughes to Rashard Lewis is the height of absurdity.

You should really update the post saying you hadn't thought it through.

Posted by goosen | July 3, 2007 4:59 PM

As a Sonics fan who has watched Lewis during his 9 year career, I am not sad to see him go. His offensive game has gotten better, but he has got to be one of the softest 6'10" guys around. If the Sonics had kept Lewis, they might win 30 games next year. Without him, they'll win 20-25 and get a better lottery pick next year. It's probably the right way to build the franchise.

Posted by Steven Donegal | July 3, 2007 5:14 PM

Comparing Larry Hughes to Rashard Lewis is the height of absurdity.

Based on what, exactly? What has Lewis ever done in this league, besides have a 40 man entourage?

Somebody who knows explain to me what a max deal means in real dollar terms.

Posted by Freddie | July 3, 2007 6:37 PM

On the "getting the No. 1 guy" strategy, Seattle should've gone for Gerald Wallace. I'm pretty convinced that Wallace is a better all-around player than Lewis, and younger to boot.

Posted by Trickster | July 3, 2007 6:39 PM

Oops, I meant Orlando. But the other part is wise and carefully thought out. :)

Posted by Trickster | July 3, 2007 6:40 PM

I endorse Trickster's message. Wallace is a much better player than Lewis. Though for Orlando's needs, Lewis is a better fit. Just not at max money.

Plus their backcourt still sucks. Hard.

Posted by Pooh | July 3, 2007 7:03 PM

Dear sherrifffruitfly: What exactly is the fraud with the Durant jersey offer? I don't get it.

Posted by nbt | July 3, 2007 7:36 PM

Lewis has performed at about the same level for the past 5 years or so, so you can be pretty sure of what you're getting. Larry Hughes had one awesome year. It was obviously stupid, therefore, to give him max money.

And Pooh is right about Lewis vs. Wallace, and about which one is a better fit in Orlando. I'm not a huge Rashard Lewis fan, but the upgrade from Grant Hill to Lewis is enough to put Orlando pretty damn close to the top teir in the East.

Posted by too many steves | July 3, 2007 7:38 PM

The Lewis signing is definitely an expression of the "all we need is a 3-point shooter to take pressure off our superstar" theory of basketball.

This may be true, but it sure didn't work out for Cleveland. Interestingly enough, the three guys they signed for this purpose, Jones, Marshall, and Hughes (more theoretical second option than shooter) all seemed to fall off when they got there. Who knows why this is, team dynamics, circadian rhythms being out of wack, but this plan does seem to go awry fairly often.

I think it bodes ill for the Magic, in that reports of Howard's postgame are less than stellar. If those reports are accurate, players won't have to sag off Lewis. He'll probably shoot reasonably well because he's tall but I doubt it will be the deadly Catch 22 the Magic are hoping for.

Posted by MrTimbo | July 3, 2007 8:39 PM

Defense shmeefence. He always outscored the other teams small forward. I will miss him until Durant starts playing. Where's that petey guy who knows all the money stuff? Does this mean Seattle has a shitload more money to sign people?

Posted by WishyWashySeattleite | July 3, 2007 9:06 PM

Hughes wasn't the #1 guy in free agency that year, Michael Redd was.

Anyway, Lewis is a way better offensive player than Hughes. His TS% is .073 higher, and his turnover ratio 2.2 lower. Going by PER, he has six seasons over 17, to Hughes' two, and three seasons over 19, to Hughes' one.

Yeah, he's being overpaid, but what big-time scorer should the Magic have been saving their cap room for?

Posted by Evan | July 3, 2007 10:43 PM

The Magic are also going to lose Darko because they are giving so much damn money to Lewis, which is another downside. Did they really have to pay him $15 million a year? Would $12 million not have been enough to get him? I really don't see Lewis as being a max money-caliber player.

As for Seattle, I think the writing was on the wall when the Sonics drafted two forwards in the top five last week.

Posted by Dimmy Karras | July 3, 2007 11:17 PM

Who cares what Larry Hughes thinks? Lewis is exactly the shooter Orlando needs to stretch the defense, and with Howard on the boards already, they don't need a great rebounder or shot blocker.

Prediction: playing in the weak East, Lewis will substantially increase his numbers, and likely contend for All-Star status.

Posted by Kit Stolz | July 4, 2007 12:46 AM

You left out the last part of Hollinger's thoughts: So the Magic might have overpaid a little, but they didn't waste their money. And with Dwight Howard about to sign a huge extension, this was their last shot to play the market for a long time.

The point is, they can still re-sign Darko through the Larry Bird exception (they've just lost right of first refusal), and the Howard extension is going to eat up all their remaining cap space anyway, so in cap terms this deal is a no brainer. It does seem like they've pissed off Darko's agent in the process, which wasn't great.

Posted by right | July 4, 2007 4:51 AM

Dwight Howard has no offensive game beyond 15 feet but he's a monster rebounder. Rashard Lewis has a great offensive game from beyond 15 feet but he's soft. The list of 6'10"+ players in NBA history that are great at both is about 5 players long. You win in the NBA with a team of complimentary players and Rashard Lewis is a nice compliment to Dwight Howard.

Posted by joejoejoe | July 4, 2007 7:13 AM

"Larry Hughes is laughing all the way to the bank on the basis of this theory."

If I've got my history right, the team that signed Larry Hughes made the Finals quite recently.

If that's an example of bad team management, then consider me confused about Matthew's point.

I mean, seriously, Washington and Cleveland were at a very similar level when Hughes signed with Cleveland. Now Cleveland is clearly above Washington and we're supposed to believe that Cleveland made the wrong move and Washington made the right move about Hughes?

-----

"Larry Hughes had one awesome year."

Hughes' last year in Washington was only mildly better than his career norms. He would've signed a big contract even if that year had been right at his career norms.

"It was obviously stupid, therefore, to give him max money."

In what universe is a $60m/5yr contract max money?

-----

The Lewis signing is obviously a good move for the Magic.

They overpaid a bit for Lewis, but it was a better alternative for them rather not overpaying a bit and not getting him.

The deal that confuses me is NJ paying $62m for Vince Carter when I'd guess the most he could've gotten on the open market would've been about $40m - $45m. Why overpay by that much when you're essentially bidding against yourself?

Posted by Petey | July 4, 2007 9:02 AM

"Did they really have to pay him $15 million a year? Would $12 million not have been enough to get him?"

Maybe $12m would've been enough to get him. But if that had been their offer, Lewis almost definitely would've waited to see if Seattle could've put together a sign & trade elsewhere for more money.

So maybe $12m would've been enough, but maybe it wouldn't have been. There were certainly other suitors for Lewis, just none who could do the deal without a sign & trade.

Much as with Hughes, if you really want a top free agent, you generally have to overpay a bit. Having multiple buyers drives up prices.

Posted by Petey | July 4, 2007 9:28 AM

Much as with Hughes, if you really want a top free agent, you generally have to overpay a bit. Having multiple buyers drives up prices.

I know what you're saying and I don't disagree. What I always find a little weird is saying that overpaying was the right thing to do. Like... if it's the right thing to do, isn't it by definition not overpaying? Isn't the old capitalist thing that anything is worth what the market will bare?

Posted by Freddie | July 4, 2007 9:33 AM

"Like... if it's the right thing to do, isn't it by definition not overpaying?"

He's overpaid compared to his fair value, but not compared to his market value.

Since there are many factors restraining player movement, some guys get overpaid and some guys get underpaid. It's not an efficient market.

I'd say that fair value on Lewis is more like $10m - $12m a year.

Or to put it another way, if every single NBA player was a free agent, that's what Lewis would likely receive.

But since there are few highly desirable free agents available, it may behoove a team to overpay a bit to reel one in, given their scarcity.

Or even more simply, Lewis' market value is above his fair value.

Again, what confuses me is why NJ would pay above both fair value and above market value to re-sign Carter. If NJ had offered him $10m rather than $15m, Carter had nowhere else to go, unlike Lewis.

Posted by Petey | July 4, 2007 10:04 AM

I find it unbelieveable that people think it's a great idea for a team to pay Rashard Lewis a max salary. When you hand out a max salary, that deal becomes a major impediment to any and all future moves. 3 max contracts is just about the most any team can afford under luxury tax rules. The Magic has now committed one of those slots to a 28 year old, 6'10'' jump shooter who's made a grand total of one All-Star game in his career.

At least when the Celtics got Ray Allen they could argue that...

A. His massive contract only runs one season more than the massive contract they were paying for Wally Z.

B. Boston's window to do anything with Paul Pierce as the centerpiece of their team is the next 3 to 4 years.

Dwight Howard has another 10 to 12 years as the core of the Magic, and Orlando has now decided that at least half that time he is going to be teamed with Rashard Lewis.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 4, 2007 10:15 AM

When you hand out a max salary, that deal becomes a major impediment to any and all future moves.

That doesn't seem clear to me. If he were on the books for 13 mil. per year, the Magic could offer another player a 2 mil. contract. That makes little difference, it seems to me. Nor is it clear that a 13 mil. player is that much harder to trade than a 15 mil. player. Beyond the actual money, what does that 2 mil. cost them? Or how much more than 2 mil. does the decrease in salary offered have to be before it does matter?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 4, 2007 10:25 AM

I mean, seriously, Washington and Cleveland were at a very similar level when Hughes signed with Cleveland. Now Cleveland is clearly above Washington and we're supposed to believe that Cleveland made the wrong move and Washington made the right move about Hughes?

Post hoc ergo prompter hoc.

Posted by Al | July 4, 2007 11:27 AM

"Post hoc ergo prompter hoc"

I really don't think so.

After the Hughes hejira, Washington's defense became untenable and Cleveland's defense became elite.

You think this is coincidental to the Hughes signing?

Posted by Petey | July 4, 2007 11:35 AM

Again, what confuses me is why NJ would pay above both fair value and above market value to re-sign Carter. If NJ had offered him $10m rather than $15m, Carter had nowhere else to go, unlike Lewis.

I don't know that Carter had nowhere to go. You can force a sign-and-trade to get to a team even over the cap. As for "fair value", well, Carter is certainly a bettr player than Lewis, so I am not sure the amount is off. I think Carter is just slightly worse than Paul Pierce - and he is getting paid slightly less. Seems about right to me.

But, to answer your question (even though I think you are wrong about fair and market value for Carter), the reason to overpay Carter is not for basketball reasons, but rather because they need to keep fans in the seats for 2 years until Brooklyn. And Carter does that. We won't compete for a championship, but we'll be a playoff team, maybe second round, through the first year in Brooklyn (and, who knows, with a bunch of luck, you might get another trip to the finals - it wasn't that far away this year). After that, you reassess what you can get through free agency and otherwise. You know the rumor is that Jay Z convinced LeBron to come to Brooklyn after his CLE contract runs out - I put zero credence in that, but I think that it is just possible that the situation with the Nets changes drastically after the move.

Posted by Al | July 4, 2007 11:41 AM

"I don't know that Carter had nowhere to go. You can force a sign-and-trade to get to a team even over the cap."

Hmmm...

While a team over the cap could indeed have participated in a sign & trade to get Carter, I think Carter had very limited leverage to "force" such a trade.

His only real leverage would have been the threat of signing a mid-level one year deal elsewhere.

If I'm Vince, I'd have signed a 4yr/$48m deal with NJ rather than deal with the risk of injury and having to play out another contract year. No to mention the money he'd have lost next year, even if everything worked out.

And I think that's a relatively generous stance from NJ. I think they'd have stood a good chance at keeping Carter at an even lower rate than $48m.

-----

As to the business and bball reasons why it made sense for NJ to retain Carter, no arguments here. He's a nice player.

My only point is that much as situations conspire to make Lewis' market value above his fair value, situations should conspire to keep Carter's market value below his fair value.

I think NJ could have retained Carter for a significantly lower cap hit.

Posted by Petey | July 4, 2007 11:57 AM

"That doesn't seem clear to me. If he were on the books for 13 mil. per year, the Magic could offer another player a 2 mil. contract. That makes little difference, it seems to me."

If you've only got 5 million dollars in cap space and you lose out on a good player because he gets 7 million from another team, it'll make a big difference. And on the other end that extra two mil is another two mil that counts against the luxury tax.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 4, 2007 12:46 PM

That's going to be situation specific, and the Magic, it appears, would sit at about $52 mil. with a 13 mil. Lewis contract. If the salary cap is $55 mil., then they have $3 mil to offer instead of $1 mil. They remain some $10 mil. below the salary cap. Don't see the problem, especially given the MLE.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 4, 2007 12:54 PM

"If the salary cap is $55 mil., then they have $3 mil to offer instead of $1 mil."

And, of course, given the MLE, being under the cap doesn't matter one whit until you get around $8m under the cap.

-----

"When you hand out a max salary, that deal becomes a major impediment to any and all future moves."

What I think you miss in the equation is that Orlando's cap flexibility was only good for this offseason, due to Howard's impending contract.

Thus, if they didn't sign someone this year, they weren't going to be able to repeat the process next summer. And Lewis was the best guy out there.

Lewis will obviously take up tax space, but if you don't do a deal like this, you're going to have a team light on talent the next couple of years with limited prospects of getting better.

Posted by Petey | July 4, 2007 1:21 PM

"If you've only got 5 million dollars in cap space and you lose out on a good player because he gets 7 million from another team, it'll make a big difference."

First of all, whether you've got $0 cap space or $5m cap space, you can still offer a player $6m because of the mid-level.

Second of all, how many teams do you think are far enough below the cap to outbid you at the mid-level and offer $7m? This year, it's 4 out of 30.

In other words, the cap basically doesn't matter. You shouldn't worry about your favorite team staying under the cap, or how far they are under the cap, or how a particular move affects them in relation to the cap.

There are some exceptions around very low payroll teams in the beginning stages of rebuilding, but Orlando won't be part of that group after this year, regardless of whether they signed Lewis at $15m or $5m.

The tax threshold does matter, but that's a different discussion.

Posted by Petey | July 4, 2007 1:36 PM

"That's going to be situation specific, and the Magic, it appears, would sit at about $52 mil. with a 13 mil. Lewis contract. If the salary cap is $55 mil., then they have $3 mil to offer instead of $1 mil. They remain some $10 mil. below the salary cap. Don't see the problem, especially given the MLE."

The Magic are going to offer Dwight Howard a max contract that will kick in several years before Lewis' deal expires. That will take them over the salary cap, even if they don't do anything else but keep their current team in place. The problem for the Magic is that 3 years down the road, they'll have a max deal for Lewis and a max deal for Howard. That's about half the salary cap tied up in just two players. That's not that big a problem if both those players are perennial all-star's and among the best players at their position in the league. Howard could likely be that. Lewis will almost certainly not.

The more money you commit to a team's star players, the less they have to fill out the rest of the roster. When you wildly overpay someone like Lewis (he's apparently going to be getting several million more a year than Chauncy Billups), you can't overpay for the 6 to 7 players that fill out the Magic's rotation. Which means not only have you overpaid for a "star" player who isn't as good as other teams' stars, but you've got less talent through the rest of the team as well.

Look at the Nets. They've got so much money invested in Kidd, Carter and Jefferson that they're reduced to pinning all their hoopes on Nenad Kristic...because they don't have any money to get any other significant talent on the team.

The Magic are going to pay Lewis max money, not because he's a great player they think can carry a team to a championship, but because they think he compliments Dwight Howard well. You don't give complimentary players max salaries.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 4, 2007 1:38 PM

"Look at the Nets. They've got so much money invested in Kidd, Carter and Jefferson that they're reduced to pinning all their hoopes on Nenad Kristic...because they don't have any money to get any other significant talent on the team."

NJ is paying their big three $47m/yr. Orlando will be paying their big two $26m/yr. That's a big difference.

"The Magic are going to pay Lewis max money, not because he's a great player they think can carry a team to a championship, but because they think he compliments Dwight Howard well. You don't give complimentary players max salaries."

Again, the Magic are paying Lewis max money because this is their only opportunity to pick up an elite player via free-agency, and Lewis is the best guy available who fits into their plans.

Posted by Petey | July 4, 2007 1:51 PM

Petey - "What I think you miss in the equation is that Orlando's cap flexibility was only good for this offseason, due to Howard's impending contract.

Thus, if they didn't sign someone this year, they weren't going to be able to repeat the process next summer. And Lewis was the best guy out there."

Actually, Howard is under his original contract for two more years. That means that they wouldn've still had salary cap space for next off season, if they hadn't signed Lewis' deal.

With Lewis' deal, the Magic can sign, at most, one more decent player before going over the salary cap. Then when they have to give Howard his deal, they'll be within spitting distance of the luxury tax. That's why they've basically had to give up on Darko, because signing him even to an MLE-level deal would be the last major move they could make.

The argument isn't that the Magic shouldn't have signed a free agent. It's that you don't spend max money on a player like Lewis.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 4, 2007 1:57 PM

Petey - "First of all, whether you've got $0 cap space or $5m cap space, you can still offer a player $6m because of the mid-level."

And every mid-level you offer moves you that much closer to the luxury tax, which most owners quite reasonably refuse to play.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 4, 2007 2:00 PM

"NJ is paying their big three $47m/yr. Orlando will be paying their big two $26m/yr. That's a big difference.

Again, the Magic are paying Lewis max money because this is their only opportunity to pick up an elite player via free-agency, and Lewis is the best guy available who fits into their plans."

The big difference is that Lewis isn't as good a player as ANY member of NJ's big three. And giving max salaries to someone simply because they're "the best available player" is how you end up with a mediocre team that's paying the luxury tax.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 4, 2007 2:04 PM

"Actually, Howard is under his original contract for two more years. That means that they wouldn've still had salary cap space for next off season, if they hadn't signed Lewis' deal."

The Class of 2003 is moving up to grown-up contracts this year, and the Class of 2004 will follow next year.

This year will be Howard's last at rookie rates. He gets bumped up for '08-'09.

"That's why they've basically had to give up on Darko, because signing him even to an MLE-level deal would be the last major move they could make."

The Magic would happily sign Darko at MLE rates - they've still got a relatively light payroll - as would almost anyone in the league. Darko will sign for more than the MLE.

The Magic seem to have made a judgment that paying Darko $10m/yr was riskier than paying Lewis $15m/yr. That's a valid point to me, and one you seem to miss with your fetishization of "max money".

"The argument isn't that the Magic shouldn't have signed a free agent. It's that you don't spend max money on a player like Lewis."

But the argument isn't Lewis vs Another Free Agent.

It's Lewis vs No One.

Posted by Petey | July 4, 2007 2:17 PM

"The big difference is that Lewis isn't as good a player as ANY member of NJ's big three."

OK. Now I'm starting to think you're a crazy person. I think pretty much any team in the league would prefer Lewis to RJ.

Posted by Petey | July 4, 2007 2:31 PM

Petey - "The Class of 2003 is moving up to grown-up contracts this year, and the Class of 2004 will follow next year.

This year will be Howard's last at rookie rates. He gets bumped up for '08-'09.

The Magic would happily sign Darko at MLE rates - they've still got a relatively light payroll - as would almost anyone in the league. Darko will sign for more than the MLE.

The Magic seem to have made a judgment that paying Darko $10m/yr was riskier than paying Lewis $15m/yr. That's a valid point to me, and one you seem to miss with your fetishization of "max money".

But the argument isn't Lewis vs Another Free Agent."

It's Lewis vs No One."

1. You're wrong. The Magic can make a qualifying offer for Howard in the 5th year of his deal. Which means that his max money may not necessarily kick in until the year after that.

2. Who's going to sign Darko for more than the MLE? The Bucks, Griz, Bulls and Bobcats are the only teams that can do so. The Bulls sure aren't going to give 10 mil a year for Darko and I doubt the Bucks will either, given the bigs they already have. So that leaves the Griz (won't happen unless they trade Gasol) and Bobcats (just took on Jason Richardson's huge deal). There's at least a decent chance that Darko won't get anything more than the MLE, but Orlando has given up the right to match even that.

3. My only fetish is about the stupidity of giving max money to players that don't deserve it. Lewis is a jump shooter who doesn't play defense and doesn't rebound exceptionally well, yet the Magic are giving him max money because "he's the best available player".

Consider the Celtic's big 3 vs. Orlando's current big 2. Ray Allen is better than Rashard Lewis. Paul Pierce is better than Rashard Lewis. Dwight Howard is better than Al Jefferson, but Al's low post skills keep the gap from being that big. So, talent-wise, the Magic have still got to go out and find a player at least as good as Allen or Pierce simply to match the talent level of the freakin' Boston Celtics!

The argument isn't Lewis vs. no one. Firstly, it's Lewis vs. Gerald Wallace, a player who's almost as good a scorer and a much better defender. Secondly, it's offering Lewis less money so you have space to sign other players, with the worst case scenario being you lose out on Lewis and spend less money and/or commit to fewer years for a Desmond Mason, Matt Barnes or Morris Peterson.

Posted by MBunge | July 4, 2007 2:42 PM

Petey- "OK. Now I'm starting to think you're a crazy person. I think pretty much any team in the league would prefer Lewis to RJ."

Not if they're familiar with this thing known as "defense". Pretty much every team in the league would prefer to have RJ with his current contract instead of Lewis with a max deal. They wouldn't give RJ a max deal, which only illustrates why it's stupid to do so with Lewis.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 4, 2007 2:45 PM

"You're wrong. The Magic can make a qualifying offer for Howard in the 5th year of his deal. Which means that his max money may not necessarily kick in until the year after that."

But the chances of a qualifying offer are basically zero. Howard is obviously going to get paid next summer. The Magic aren't insane.

Barring injury or scandal, I think it's safe to say the odds are 100% that this is Howard's final year on his rookie contract.

"Pretty much every team in the league would prefer to have RJ with his current contract instead of Lewis with a max deal"

I thought your contention was that RJ was a better player than Lewis, not that he had a better contract.

-----

Basically, I think this entire topic began and ended for you when you tried to put the phrases "max money" and "Rashard Lewis" comfortably in the same sentence and failed. The specifics at hand don't seem as important to you as the cognitive dissonance involved with the fact that the second best player on the team will be paid "max money".

Rashard Lewis is not one of the top 15 players in the association. Yet it still makes perfect sense for the Magic to have made the offer they did if they thought a lowball offer stood a decent chance of getting beaten.

Posted by Petey | July 4, 2007 3:05 PM

I'd say RJ is at least equal to Lewis. You need to discount this year for RJ - he was hurt for most of the year. Compare RJ of 2005/6 to Rashard of this year (probably his best year). RJ had a higher TS%, a higher A/40, and a higher R/40. Lewis is a better scorer (despite RJ having a higher TS%), as he is a better shooter. But RJ is a superior defender.

Posted by Al | July 4, 2007 7:43 PM

"You need to discount this year for RJ - he was hurt for most of the year."

RJ's fragility enters into the conversation, y'know. He's played 55+ games only once out of the past 3 seasons.

(And if I were you, Al, I'd absolutely hate Chauncey. His arguably cheap shot started RJ's whole downward health spiral.)

While I don't discount RJ's gifts, at the same contract level, I really do think almost all teams would take Lewis over RJ, including even the Nets. RJ does a lot of nice things, but Lewis is just a notch more elite.

Posted by Petey | July 4, 2007 8:35 PM

Well, I suppse fragility can come into the picture. But on the court, what exactly does Lewis do better than RJ, other than 3-point shooting? I think RJ is superior at basically every other aspect of the game.

Posted by Al | July 4, 2007 9:18 PM

Well, I suppse fragility can come into the picture. But on the court, what exactly does Lewis do better than RJ, other than 3-point shooting? I think RJ is superior at basically every other aspect of the game.

Posted by Al | July 4, 2007 9:23 PM

Of course, all this will be moot when Howard reveals himself to be incapable of developing a real offensive game. It's impressive how much he scores purely on dunks and tips, but you don't build a franchise around a guy who can only do that. Howard is painfully, painfully bad on offense.

Posted by Freddie | July 4, 2007 11:30 PM

"But on the court, what exactly does Lewis do better than RJ, other than 3-point shooting? I think RJ is superior at basically every other aspect of the game."

I agree with you that RJ is a superior all-around player. But Lewis is elite as a scorer in a way that makes him a more valuable commodity than RJ.

Don't forget that RJ has been able to prosper during his entire career by playing with J-Kidd as the third option on offense. He's far less suited than Lewis to playing a more major role on offense without that special situation.

RJ is basically a more seasoned version of Andre Iguodala. That's not chopped liver, but it's not the unstoppable offensive force that Lewis represents.

Posted by Petey | July 5, 2007 1:18 PM