- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Nance signs $21 million extension
Posted on 10/2/22 at 5:39 am to shel311
Posted on 10/2/22 at 5:39 am to shel311
quote:
You realized it's a great contract
No, I don't. I don't think it's a great contract. It's fine for this year. We need the depth. Unless we have a major injury, I don't see how he gets more than 18ppg and he will struggle to be top 8 on the team in mpg. Fast forward to the next season, I don't see him in the two deep. So, the last two years of the deal, he is a spartan contributor and making a significant amount of money. He is basically Graham at that point.
quote:
now you've shifted the goalposts to complain about that if we like Nance, how could we like a team friendly contract.
I was pointing out the conflict of the argument. It does not make logical sense to me. People are stating that it is a great value for the team, cause Nance will end up being underpaid. So, it is worth the gamble. If you like a player and want him rewarded, that shouldn't be a positive.
quote:
frick are you doing right now?
Inherently I do not like long term contracts. They are cumbersome and limit rooster flexibility. Unless a team is a top end contender, it should be flipping 20-30% of it's roster each off season. Spots 10-15 should be filled with young high-end players on very low contracts. Or at worse, vets on minimum deals. We are locking in this same roster for multiple years in a row. I do not believe it is a wise plan.
4
Posted on 10/2/22 at 5:44 am to brmark70816
Nance's contract is perfect filler value wise and year wise, if a big fish comes along available for trade
I mean, Griff gave Graham twice as many years @ a higher average salary just last year who is a much, much worse player. Completely untradeable player, unless a 1st is attached
It's the years, rather than the monetary value that's the real killer for a contract
I mean, Griff gave Graham twice as many years @ a higher average salary just last year who is a much, much worse player. Completely untradeable player, unless a 1st is attached
It's the years, rather than the monetary value that's the real killer for a contract
This post was edited on 10/2/22 at 5:46 am
Posted on 10/2/22 at 8:06 am to brmark70816
The point you are making about wanting the players we like to get paid more because we like them is the dumbest portion of your whole dumb arse argument. Yea, I like Nance. No, I don’t wish we would have given him $20 mill a year instead of 10. Pretty sure he can live comfortably enough with the $10MM. Your constant negative, always contrarian posts are getting more ridiculous by the day.
Posted on 10/2/22 at 9:42 am to brmark70816
quote:You made that up. It's a conflict to no one but you. You changed your argument to that once you were told how terrible it your first argument was.
I was pointing out the conflict of the argument
quote:I'm not sure someone could know less about sports than this comment. Just not sure it's even possible.
It does not make logical sense to me. People are stating that it is a great value for the team, cause Nance will end up being underpaid. So, it is worth the gamble. If you like a player and want him rewarded, that shouldn't be a positive
quote:So you like short term contracts where you have to pay a premium and also can lose a solid player earlier than if you had signed him long term?
Inherently I do not like long term contracts. They are cumbersome and limit rooster flexibility.
quote:That has nothing to do with Nance, he's not 10-15
Spots 10-15 should be filled with young high-end players on very low contracts. Or at worse, vets on minimum deals.
quote:So you prefer to let CJ and Nance go and you think we can replace both of them with just the MLE?
We are locking in this same roster for multiple years in a row. I do not believe it is a wise plan.
Posted on 10/2/22 at 12:29 pm to brmark70816
quote:
Spots 10-15 should be filled with young high-end players on very low contracts. Or at worse, vets on minimum deals.
This season it’s very likely that our 11-15 spots are just what you described.
Players 11-15 for the upcoming season:
Dyson (to start the season)
Billy
Naji
Temple
Kira
That’s two young guys on rookie deals, 2 essentially min deals, and Temple who is only making 2.4 mil over the vet min.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News