A retrospective look at Sund's offseson moves

[NineOhTheRino]

Signed Mike Bibby to a 3-year $18 million deal

Signed Zaza to a 4-year $19 million deal

Signed Marvin to a 5-year $37.5 million deal

Even with the "acquisition" of Crawford Mr. Sund did not have a very good off season.

These numbers come from: http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/contracts

Edited February 22, 2010 by NineOhTheRino

[mrhonline]

The best thing that Sund did was the front-loaded first season of the three contracts.

For example, the full MLE deal that Ariza received will look like this compared with Marvin going forward:

2010-11: $6.32M vs. $6.71M (+$0.39M)

2011-12: $6.79M vs. $7.50M (+$0.71M)

2012-13: $7.26M vs. $8.29M (+$1.03M)

2013-14: $7.73M vs. $7.50M (-$0.27M)

For the remainder of his contract, Marvin's deal totals only $1.86M above a full MLE deal. (By comparison, Charlie Villanueva is owed ~$1M more than Marvin over the next four years) Marvin, like Childress, would have gotten an MLE deal from someone, so Sund was protecting his "assets."

Bibby will have "only" $12M left after this season, so he's not unmovable as part of a larger package. I have no problem with Zaza's remaining deal, because he's proven to be a solid, reserve big when healthy. 3 years, $14M for that isn't outrageous. (It's a 20% raise from the deal he signed with Atlanta, what, five years ago?).

I personally think the Hawks should and can move at least one of these three in the summer, but we'll have to wait on the JJ saga to unfold first.

[AHF]

I'll do a "retrospective" at the end of the season. As of now, those signings look a lot worse than they did at the beginning of the year. If Bibby goes off in the playoffs, Zaza starts hitting the boards, and Marvin ups his shooting efficiency and rebounding for the last part of the year and the playoffs then that will certainly change my view from today just as the subpar play by everyone so far changed from view from this summer.

[NineOhTheRino]

None of the deals are bad by NBA standards but I'm shocked that none of these guys appear to be what Sund thought he was getting. No nice way to put this...Zaza and Bibby have been plain awful.

[mrhonline]

Marvin and Bibby have definitely been disappointments, but I can't help but wonder if Zaza's play has been influenced by his injuries.

[NineOhTheRino]

I'm starting to wonder the same about Bibby. Bibbs started out around 40% from 3 but now he is seriously struggling with his shot.

Edited February 22, 2010 by NineOhTheRino

[TheTruth]

The deals themselves were financially sound based on last year's performance and their likely progression (Marvin) or their likelihood to play about the same (Zaza and Bibby). Unfortunately, NONE of the three ended up fulfilling those very reasonable expectations, so in turn, those offseason moves look a lot worse.

[macdaddy]

The only question I have is was there really any interest from other teams in signing Marvin? It would have been a much better move to let him play on the QO right? Then he might have played better or at least he would have been tradeable?

[niremetal]

The only question I have is was there really any interest from other teams in signing Marvin? It would have been a much better move to let him play on the QO right? Then he might have played better or at least he would have been tradeable?

We would have lost him for nothing this coming summer. His haters might consider that a not-so-bad outcome, but we couldn't afford to get nothing for him. We basically gave him a hair more than the mid-level (as mrhonline showed, that's really what the contract was) in order to make sure we didn't lose him for nothing this coming summer. Based on how well he played last year before his injury, it's tough to question that logic.

Edited February 22, 2010 by niremetal

[macdaddy]

We would have lost him for nothing this coming summer. His haters might consider that a not-so-bad outcome, but we couldn't afford to get nothing for him. We basically gave him a hair more than the mid-level (as mrhonline showed, that's really what the contract was) in order to make sure we didn't lose him for nothing this coming summer. Based on how well he played last year before his injury, it's tough to question that logic.

Why would we lose him for nothing? We could have traded him at the deadline to a team looking for cap relief. That's what we lacked to make a move, an expiring contract.

[mrhonline]

His QO was over $7M, wasn't it?

At this point, it's just hindsight. Sund did the right thing, IMHO. The blame belongs on Marvin.

[niremetal]

Why would we lose him for nothing? We could have traded him at the deadline to a team looking for cap relief. That's what we lacked to make a move, an expiring contract.

No, it doesn't work that way for players who are on QOs. The rule is that they have to consent to any trades that happen during the year that they are playing under the QO, and players will basically never agree to such trades because their Bird Rights are stripped away if they are traded.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q82

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q87