A source confirmed to FanHouse the deadline is expected to pass without Washington guard Randy Foye...

A source confirmed to FanHouse the deadline is expected to pass without Washington guard Randy Foye getting an deal done, but that has been expected for the past week.

Fanhouse.

I'm going to write more about this later. It's hardly surprising that Foye didn't receive an extension, but there's a legitimate argument that signing him now would have been very wise.

3 months ago Mike Prada 13 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Clearly

If he pans out and becomes a stud, we could buy low. Isn’t that the case with pending free agent?

I don’t mind not signing him for three reasons, one: there is going to be fewer buyers (do to the economy), two: a much lower salary cap (again economy), three: he is restricted.

All making it unlikely that he gets a crazy contract that he is unworthy of, and even if he gets offered something more than we would like to pay we can always match it. I think it makes sense, with our limited cap space this off-season paying Foye too much would have been crippling

by Blatche4MVP on Nov 2, 2009 1:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

That's the other side of the argument

The argument for signing him now is that, historically, even with the presence of restricted free agency, guys who sign extensions usually get paid less than those who you wait on. Reason being that, logically, players tend to improve between their fourth and fifth year.

I’ll write more about this though.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Nov 2, 2009 2:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

I can see either argument, but I lean more towards the sign him now side of things. Of course, one offseason and three games is a pretty small sample size, but the synergy we’re seeing so far is impossible to ignore. Unless he turns out to merely be on a hot streak, I think that at the end of the season, we’re going to look back on this and wish a deal had just gotten done. And if someone pulls a Paul Milsap move on us and makes us commit to Foye for huge numbers, I’ll be very disappointed.

"One-on-one? You can't." -Gilbert Arenas
JC Bandwagon all day!

by kseandoyle on Nov 2, 2009 6:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

my point is that

Historically yes, but isnt this going to be a unique off-season with the cap taking a huge decrease? The money just may not be there

by Blatche4MVP on Nov 2, 2009 6:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The cap may be going down

But there are a lot (and I mean a lot) of teams with cap room that will have to sign somebody or some combination of players so their fans won’t revolt.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Nov 2, 2009 6:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes - there's a lot of teams with Cap space next year...

Mark Stein (ESPN) did a piece about the seven teams that will have significant space under the salary cap to go after free agents in 2010…

But there are also a LOT, and I mean a LOT, of very very good players available either as unrestricted Free Agents or as restricted Free Agents (like Foye)…

Obviously, the top tier guys like LeBron, Wade, Bosh, Nowitzki, Kwame Brown, and Amare Stoudemire, will get first crack at the big bucks…. But then there’s Joe Johnson, Ray Allen, Shaq, Tracy McGrady, Yao Ming, Manu Ginobli, Carlos Boozer, etc…. Once those guys get theirs, will there be anything left for the next tier guys like: Randy Foye, Mike Miller, Marcus Camby, TJ Ford, Kyle Lowry, Brendan Haywood, David Lee, Udonis Haslem, etc…..?

So, seven teams competing for 5 superstars, and 8-10 All-Star type players, and another 10-15 starter quality players…..plus the 25-30 other quality bench players available…..

I don’t think there will be enough money to go around… and guys like Foye, Miller, Haslem, Luis Scola, Brad Miller, John Salmons, etc. will have to settle for lower than expected dollars.

Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......

by Rook6980 on Nov 2, 2009 9:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What does "restricted" mean?

Simply that we can match any offer, or that we would get compensation if he signs somewhere else?

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Nov 2, 2009 7:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Just the former, not the latter

by RamV on Nov 2, 2009 7:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think he's a Qualifying Offer-type free agent

He is with us for the next year at a fixed price unless someone offers him more money and years than that… And if someone does that, we have the option to match that. If we do match, he’s ours and no one else can make an offer.

I think. I’m always a little confused with all the levels of free agency in the NBA.

"One-on-one? You can't." -Gilbert Arenas
JC Bandwagon all day!

by kseandoyle on Nov 2, 2009 10:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We can still negotiate a contract with him so he doesn't sign for the QO if nobody tries to sign him

i.e. what the Knicks did with David Lee.

Basically, the way it works is that other teams can sign him, but the Wizards have seven days to match the offer. Then, if the Wizards can’t work out an agreement on a long-term deal with him, he can sign the qualifying offer up to a certain deadline, which makes him a unrestricted free agent next offseason. Rarely do guys who sign the QO stay with their team long-term — in fact, I don’t believe it’s ever happened.

Of course, they might change this all in the next collective bargaining agreement, but who knows.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Nov 2, 2009 10:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the answers

Although, I’m still not sure I understand. I am sure, however, that half of the GMs in the league don’t get the salary cap either. It is needlessly complicated.

by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Nov 2, 2009 10:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

it is complicated

but it’s the best Salary Cap situation in Sports….

Rookies don’t get more money that established veterans (like in the NFL)
Salaries are guaranteed, so players can’t be just released to save cap space (like in the NFL)
There are real penalties for going over the Luxury Tax (unlike MLB)
Small market teams can compete with the big boys (See Portland and San Antonio – - – unlike MLB where the Yankees continually have an advantage)

How would like an NBA where the best players just automatically leave your home town team to go play for the New York Knicks or the LA Lakers, because they just have more money that your team does…. Your NY Knicks, featuring Steve Nash, LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, Dirk Nowitzki and Gilbert Arenas in the Finals against the LA Lakers with Kobe, Amare Stoudemire, Dwight Howard, and Carmello Anthony……. ??!!!!

Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......

by Rook6980 on Nov 3, 2009 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

that would be a pretty fun finals though....

My only criticism of the NBA system is that too much money is guaranteed. Some guys need to be released because they are not close to worthy of the contract they have. Plus, how many times do we hear “he is in a contract year” implying that he is going to work extra hard this year but not as hard in other seasons

by Blatche4MVP on Nov 3, 2009 3:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs