Biedrins: To extend, or not to extend? (Update: SFGate art.)

by ffgolden on Oct 3, 2007 10:36 AM PDT

For much of the offseason I've been in the "re-sign everybody" camp: Baron, Barnes, Biedrins, Nellie, hell even Pietrus for a little while. Obviously, I liked last season's team, and my gut reaction is to keep them together.

But as we all know, Mullin's played a great game of hardball throughout the offseason. Nellie backed off of his demands, Barnes returned at a reasonable price, Sarunas was bought out for a little more than the price of his first-class plane ticket to Greece, and now Mullie is refusing to overpay for Baron's return. So far, so good. Mullin's converted me to a hardballer.

So what about Biedrins? It seems like a given that he's going to be re-signed, because lord knows we need him on this team. But at this point, after all of the other hard bargaining Mullin has done, why offer a lucrative extension to Biedrins now? If you're not going to offer an extension to your superstar and team leader, why offer one to Andris? He's going to be a restricted free agent next summer, so the Warriors can always match whatever offer sheets are put on the table, and surely Andris' free agent value is not going to surpass the $10mil/year we're all assuming Mullin's going to re-sign him for, even if he does improve by another leap/bound.

He could, of course, pull a Varejao/Pavlovic and just refuse to report to camp, if nobody offers him a decent contract and the qualifying offer of $3.6mil is all that's on the table. But unlike Cleveland, we should have decent cap room next summer, which would allow us to increase the offer if Andris refuses the qualifying.

So aside from "good will"--which nobody else has received from Mullin this offseason, without any negative consequences quite yet--what other reasons are there to offer Biedrins big money this offseason?

============================================

[Moderator's Note, by OptionZero:]

According to Janny Hu, the Warriors are indeed looking to get a deal done this month:

Both Warriors vice president Chris Mullin and Bill Duffy, Biedrins' agent, anticipate talks to pick up as preseason moves along, and although neither is publicly offering any numbers, all signs point toward a deal getting done.

This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!

0 recs | Comment 33 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Biedrins

is the one guy I would offer a long term extension to right now. While Baron "might" be worth what he is asking, I feel that waiting on Biedrins will only drive his price up. If you can extend him now for $10 mil per why wait until the summer when it could be a max extension? I say sign him.

by yehyeh82 on Oct 1, 2007 12:03 PM PDT 0 recs

mostly, do it now

While there is a risk he could get hurt and ruin his career, I would pretty much say do it now.

He will more than likely get 6 years, $60M (plus or minus change), which is more or less what Tyson Chandler, Samuel Dalembert, and Chris Kaman got after their rookie contracts. The market is established, so there isn't much to quibble over.

There is a chance he blows up and drops 15/15/3/3, which would up his price, but the maximum he could make, IIRC, is $13M starting.

While there is nothing REALLY gained from doing it now, there isn't really anything lost. We know what Biedrins is, we know what he will be. His per-minute numbers have been consistently very good, he has never been injured (enough to miss time), and he has no character issues.

I gotta say, pay the man. Biedrins is a corner stone of our success as Baron, because good big men are so rare, much less ones that can play for Nellie.

Unlike Ellis or Dunleavy, we would be paying for a guy who has ALREADY proven himself, not paying on the hope of even moderate improvement.

Biedrins is already worth the $10M he's gonna get, if he improves at all he'll be a bargain.

Questions? Complaints?

(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)

by OptionZero on Oct 1, 2007 12:56 PM PDT 0 recs

but

2 of those contracts were HUGE mistakes, handed out after 1 decent year & from the games i've seen, tyson chandler is overpaid as a poor man's camby(8 mill) in all areas outside of REB, where tyson is loads better.

i'm not gonna go into a how much better AB got debate, b/c in some ways that's subjective. #'s wise though, his only improvements per minute came from fouls/min & ft%. in euroleague play, AB got 15 pts & 10 reb per game, but only shot 43% from the field & 50% from the line. it's a real possibility he may never be more than what he is now. And right now he can't guard the yao's, d.howard's, & duncan's of the world effectively enough 2 be considered in the ben wallace category.

truth told, i can accept the 5 for 52. i just wonder whether they can't get him 4 less. considering the dirth of quality FA's that'll be available & the ? marks that other GMs have b/c of the nellie-ball factor, r there teams w/ the cap space & willingness 2 offer him that lucrative of a deal?

looking through hoopshype for 08-9, i'd say after signing their own restricted's & 1st rounders, the only team w/ that kind of cap (assuming it's at 57) would be the bobcats. the clippers & wizards have a shot if they lose brand & arenas outright, but that's unlikely. teams like chicago & minny have a chance if they decide to go in a whole new direction by not even tendering or picking up options on jefferson/foye/green/mccants or gordon/deng/thomas/sef, but, again, highly unlikely.

i guess i'm just greedy.

by the evil monkey on Oct 1, 2007 8:18 PM PDT up 0 recs

well

We're really spitting hairs here (I think you'd agree?).

Chandler is the only one that got more than $10M/annually ($64m/6yrs), and he is an awesome rebounder/shotblocker, even better than pre-signing. He's been worth it.

Kaman regressed, but he got only 6/$52.4M. He didn't totally suck, he was just more solid and less above average, as he was before. He'd be the only one I'd call "overpaid", mostly because he doesn't finish around the bucket.

Dalembert, I'd say is right on. 6/$58M, good shotblocker, better rebound man, finisher, and shotblocker than Kaman. Good signing, not a bargain, but accurate to market value.

Biedrins is already putting up $10M numbers, imo, and unless he dramatically regresses in foul rate, I don't see a downside.

Questions? Complaints?

(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)

by OptionZero on Oct 1, 2007 8:56 PM PDT up 0 recs

do not extend

i say play hardball. i am not quite sold on biedrins yet. he still needs to improve his ft% and add some offensive moves to his repertoire (besides the put backs and dunks), which i do not see happening yet. i for one would like to see one more year before handing him chris kaman money. giving him money now will only make him lazy like kaman. not giving him a contract yet will make him hungry like barnes, baron, etc. he may also get injured.

i would be very unhappy if mullin played hardball with everyone just to hand biedrins a fat contract. biedrins still has a lot to prove in my book.

by thewarriorsrule on Oct 1, 2007 1:09 PM PDT 0 recs

i say

play it safe. we still have his bird rights, so we can match any offer other teams make...so whats the rush?

by thewarriorsrule on Oct 1, 2007 1:13 PM PDT 0 recs

because

he's young and he's the most effective player on the court except for BD.

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.

by kenntoe on Oct 1, 2007 1:24 PM PDT 0 recs

i would have

to stay to not extend him at the moment.

would there be some locker room ego's flying if everybody else didn't get an extension, except for biedrins?

by jdmsir20 on Oct 1, 2007 1:40 PM PDT 0 recs

If baron wants to be a locker room problem

He will be a problem whether we extend Biedrins or not. I don't think that will be the situation though. Baron is not in the position he was in in Charlotte - where he already had a long term deal and can force a trade by holding that contract over his team. At this point, not being a model citizen with a system and a coach that is perfect for him will hurt his value, and he must know that.

Manute Bol stole my lunch money

by manute-o on Oct 1, 2007 4:53 PM PDT 0 recs

I think you offer him a deal similar to Nene's

maybe a little smaller - like 5 years 45 million and see if he bites. And BTW, would you rather have him at 10 million per, or Al at 10 million per (or in our case, both at 20 mil).

Manute Bol stole my lunch money

by manute-o on Oct 1, 2007 4:58 PM PDT 0 recs

Obviously, Biedrins

I love TMNTHarrington, but you're talking about a 28 year-old tweener forward v. a 21 y.o. true center with worlds of upside.

I'm surprised this thread topic is even a debate. Haven't we heard from multiple sources that they're working on an extension for Biedrins as we speak? I think we'll see something done in the next few weeks. In his recent interview for warriorsworld, Mark Spears of the Boston Globe pretty much nailed it:

WW: Warriors are set to offer Andris Biedrins a contract extension in the neighborhood of 5/52. Is Biedrins worth the commitment?

MS: Yes. Biedrins is one of the best young big men in the league and five years from now that contract will seem like a steal. I believe he can be an All-Star caliber player if he can improve his offensive game.

Weird that a random dude from Boston seems to understand this better than some Warriors fans. AB's the closest thing we have to a franchise cornerstone. It doesn't always pay to be cheap.

by Sleepy Freud on Oct 1, 2007 5:56 PM PDT up 0 recs

Oh I agree completely

I just threw Al's name out there because for less than 20% more than we pay Al, we can have a player like AB, who is, and will be worth so much more.

I would take AB at 45, 50 or 55 over 5 in a heartbeat.

Manute Bol stole my lunch money

by manute-o on Oct 2, 2007 3:32 PM PDT up 0 recs

Preach on brotha!

If War brings peace Dubz wit' it den!

by gsdubz on Oct 3, 2007 12:44 PM PDT up 0 recs

I agree

pattymc the players must understand that a club can't just spend the money like a J-LO when she goes out shopping.I say play the hardball and if we improve in regular season and make it to the second round or better then give the money to those who deserved it.And I don't see the players scratching their pockets trying to "feed the family" right now.

by buky on Oct 1, 2007 5:15 PM PDT 0 recs

what do you think the salary floor is for him?

If we wait:
A. He continues to improve and we're now looking at a 65-70/5 deal.
B. He gets hurt, and we'll have to still pay him 52/5 or watch another team do so (Nene is still worth his contract, even though people blasted it at the time and he tore his ACL in the first? game after signing).
C. He plays just like last year and we have to pay him 52/5 at a minimum but most likely more than that.
D. He regresses totally, and theres a very low chance we can get him for 40/5 or somesuch, or watch another team happily pay him that.

If you want reasons for signing him now, look at Etan Thomas, Joel Pryzbilla and many other crappy centers in this league have signed 4-5 year deals worth 6-7 million per while averaging 6 pts and 5 boards a game. AB is already way better than those stiffs, and should get paid like it. Teams will pay for quality bigs, and we could risk losing him or getting bid up so much we can't afford keeping him. The contract we are talking about is Eric Dampier money, for a faaar better player.

Manute Bol stole my lunch money

by manute-o on Oct 2, 2007 3:51 PM PDT up 0 recs

No brainer, extend him!

This kid is still young and has a lot of upside to him. He had a good tourney in euro and is our only proven rebounder.
Signing him to an extension now only assures as that we don't have to pay more later as he continues to improve.
It took as a long time to get a quality big, why risk losing him because we want to save money now.

by tangel29 on Oct 1, 2007 7:36 PM PDT 0 recs

No big money for AB yet

Why commit that kind of money before it is necessary? The chances of losing AB after this season are zero. The chances of losing AB two seasons from now are virtually zero. If the Warriors offer him a big deal next summer, is he going to turn it down, play for the qualifying offer, then leave as an unrestriced free agent? I don't think so.

The downside of extending AB (injury, poor play) is, in my mind, definitely greater than the downside of waiting. The risk of not extending AB is, of course, that he costs the Warriors more money a year from now. But for that to happen, four things must occur: he must have a great season; a team must be far enough under the salary cap to offer a huge deal; that team must be willing to offer that deal to AB instead of whatever other free agents may be out there; and AB must like that other team enough to risk leaving the Warriors if they decide not to match. I believe the chances of all these events happening are small, and even if they do occur, the Warriors will be paying for a more known quantity than they would be today. Frankly, I would rather pay 6 yrs/$70 million for a young center playing at All-Star level than 5 yrs/$52 million for a young center who might get there someday.

by dylantravis on Oct 1, 2007 10:27 PM PDT 0 recs

Biedrins v others

I'd like to point out the difference between Biedrins and the rest of the guys we've "hard-balled":

Baron Davis has legitimate health concerns. He is also asking for the most money. Given the size of the contract he's asking for, it's more than due diligence, but a dead requirement to get every last bit of scrutiny in before committing. That he has a history of tanking is an additional factor- prove he 's really a good citizen now.
Monta Ellis couldn't be extended due to the CBA, so no choice there.
Barnes was a journeyman, with zero track record of success. He's also a role player almost tailor made for the coach and system, so he was most valuable to us and conversely less valuable, it appears, to everyone else (barring the Suns, Raptors, Denver, or possibly Memphis). He was looking for MLE money and yet his '06-07 wasn't worth that type of green to us.
Pietrus. Had a couple injury prone seasons. Spectacularly inconsistent. One game he'll be a difference maker, the other he'll make you want to shoot him. Like Barnes, his '06-07 wasn't worth MLE money, and he had yet to show any improvement in the most critical aspects of his game: decision making, free throw shooting, turnovers. Also, he and Barnes cancelled each other out a bit, since we only "needed" one of them (since we now have actual PF's to pick from).
Biedrins, on the other hand, is already worth his price tag of $10M. Compare him to what other bigs making similar money- he comes out equal or favorably. THEN throw in his age and trend of improvement, and you have a steal. Unlike Baron, Pietrus, or Barnes, his upcoming season could actually raise his pricetag- if he does something ridiculous like 12/10/2 with a spectacular 60% FG% he's going to have a legitimate case to start his salary at $11, 12, 13M. Yet who would be really THAT surprised if he did that?

His per 40 numbers from last year come out to 13/13, with 2.3 blocks and 1.1 steals, all at age 21.

Given his current production already AND his space to improve, it makes alot of sense to wrap him up now.

Again, big point: no major injuries

Questions? Complaints?

(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)

by OptionZero on Oct 1, 2007 10:49 PM PDT 0 recs

Can't argue with any of that

We all love Andris I think, and he's worth the money. I'd certainly have no problem with a 5/$52m contract, now or later.

But the point is--and I believe you've made this one yourself--that there's not really a downside to holding off until next offseason to pay him. The only downside would be if he improves his production and thus his contract offers; but how likely is it that any teams offer him much more than $10m/y anyway, especially if the Dubs deter offers with a guarantee of matching?

Of course, there's also the possibility that Duffy is asking for far more than 5/$52m, in which case this debate would hold a lot more weight. You said it yourself, he's almost a $10 million player now, but he's also so young with a ton of room to grow. Contracts often inflate based on projected future value and production. We really have no idea what Duffy and Beans are asking for, and maybe shouldn't give the green light until we do.

by ffgolden on Oct 2, 2007 12:00 AM PDT up 0 recs

RFA

It is true that RFA is on our side and we can match anything, but:

Any team is much more likely to break the bank and heavily pursue a young, stud C than for an almost-30 injury prone PG, a combo guard with no position, or a couple roleplayer swingmen with question marks. Exaggerating, but the threat from other teams is more, imo, than other guys.
His price tag is the most likely to go up with an even better performance, since he's so young and has, really, no backup on the roster.

So technically, yeah, we probably would pay the same next year, but RFA, we've seen, can be a dragged out process. I don't wanna go through the process for our most valuable player (yeah, I said it).

Questions? Complaints?

(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)

by OptionZero on Oct 2, 2007 12:05 AM PDT up 0 recs

another bonus

For extending Biedrins now:

Because we'll have to deal with, at the very least, Baron and Ellis, possibly Barnes, Pietrus, and Azubuike next year, you want to get BIEDRINS done now so you have more time to plan.

If you want to manage your luxury tax, you have to always stay a year or more ahead of when you figure to get hit. It's hard to prepare, however, when you don't even know who you're going to pay and how much.

Locking in Biedrins to an extension now means you can configure his new contract and have some sort of idea what you'll have to work with.

Let's assume Biedrins gets $50M/5, a nice round number. The max he could start out with is $13M (which is, we all agree, too high), but it give us some room to be creative. We could...

Frontload it

13m
9.25M
9.25M
9.25M
9.25M

Thus giving us maximum cap space for the '09 offseason

Backload it

And if you tell Baron to opt-out and re-sign him to a new, also backloaded contract, you'd create more space for '08 (earlier)

Or anything in between depending how Mullin wants to do it.

So getting it done now also has the advantage of prep-time.

Questions? Complaints?

(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)

by OptionZero on Oct 2, 2007 10:57 AM PDT 0 recs

backloading

Backloading contracts as you've described is not permissible. The raises allowable from year to year are defined by the CBA. For a team re-inking their own Bird Eligible FA, that raise is 10.5%, or, starting at 8million a year, annual raises of no more than $840k. I realize that's not terribly different than the million you've got in their and were probably just giving it as a hypothetical, but indeed the amount that a team can 'backload' is rather limited, simply to prevent teams from trying to get around the cap in the short term.

[Where we have an advantage is that another team offering him equal dollars to start cannot give him more than an 8% raise on his first year salary.]

Almost all (though not all) contracts are backloaded with raises set up accordingly. There's no way we could 'overbackload' Baron beyond this either. The amount we can give either is more or less fixed and defined with a maximum both in terms of dollars and raises, so I don't think that a year's planning is really all that helpful unless Mullin and company are all completely incompetent at math and figure their cap with random guesses.

by jae on Oct 2, 2007 12:26 PM PDT up 0 recs

yeah

I was using rough numbers instead of actually getting into decimals.

Most contracts are backloaded, but I can think of one notable exception: Ben Wallace

His contract actually decreases the years that Gordon/Deng's extensions kick in (next year), so that's an example of the payroll management I was talking about.

Questions? Complaints?

(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)

by OptionZero on Oct 2, 2007 1:29 PM PDT up 0 recs

Hinrich has a deal like that too

I think it's looking pretty smart for the bulls, I must say. At least until they took that nice position and blew it by overpaying nocioni.

Manute Bol stole my lunch money

by manute-o on Oct 2, 2007 3:24 PM PDT up 0 recs

THANK YOU

Finally someone else that saw that too.

Of course, Nocioni's money might be useful balancing a deal for...say...Kobe or another superstar one day.

But the length and amount are too high, and even worse when you see they should just give the minutes to TYRUS THOMAS, Marion Redux.

Questions? Complaints?

(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)

by OptionZero on Oct 2, 2007 4:14 PM PDT up 0 recs

why do people?

Why do people keep using bad contracts as reasoning for paying Beans more?

I am the only one who see's that as an invalid reason?
This guy sucks, he gets 7mil...so that means this guy who only kinda sucks should get 10 mil.
WRONG.
Te reasoning is, this guy suck yet he's making 7 mil. That was a horrendous contract.
This guy kinda sucks, i can live with paying him 7 million.

The kinda sucks guy is Beans.

by ballerjl on Oct 3, 2007 12:45 PM PDT 0 recs

wow

First, Biedrins does not suck.

Second, existing contracts establish market value. You may disagree about whether existing contracts should be relevant, but that's what GM's and agents are looking at. Ignoring them doesn't help when the goal is to determine, realistically, what his price will be.

Questions? Complaints?

(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)

by OptionZero on Oct 3, 2007 1:18 PM PDT up 0 recs

maybe

Kinda sucks may be a little harsh but he certainly has enough flaws.

I just have to counter everyone here ooozing over him.

by ballerjl on Oct 3, 2007 3:12 PM PDT up 0 recs

Love Beans but

I think he may also, like Barnes, be a product of the system. I doubt he has high value to other teams esp the half court teams. Why not test restricted free agency when the Warriors can match?

by BiedrinsORBust on Oct 3, 2007 2:27 PM PDT 0 recs

If

he's so bad then why was the reported KG trade on hold until we wanted to part with AB? If he was as normal as you say he is, why wouldn't the Wolves pull the trigger without him included, why not just take Harrington?

by J Rich 4 MVP on Oct 3, 2007 2:53 PM PDT up 0 recs

I dont think he is bad

I think he is good, plain good. I hope he becomes very good and even great. I have a feeling that Harrington comes out gangbusters this season to gives Beans the help he needs. C'mon man check out my name and sig, I'm obviously a fan of Biedrins.

by BiedrinsORBust on Oct 3, 2007 7:08 PM PDT up 0 recs

one unaddressed possibility

great thread y'all - thoroughly dissected

would not renegotiating AB's contract diminish AB as highly coveted trade chip? not that anyone's talking about wanting to move him, but Mullin's championing the new "flexibility" mantra causes me to pause and wonder if anyone on this team is "untouchable"

if the advantage of signing AB now is only a few $m vs the risk and opportunity to make another blockbuster, might not Mullin prefer to keep his options open?

in Nelson we trust

by hardcore on Oct 3, 2007 4:11 PM PDT 0 recs

i dunno

If the price is $10M, i doubt any team complains that they have to pay him that amount. As stated above and by multiple people, that's a pretty reasonable price for his services.

There is another legit concern- PPP status. Anyone that signs an extension that doesn't kick in until next year becomes a "poison pill" player, which has all sorts of ugly salary cap implications in a trade. I'm not sure I want to try to sort through it at this time.

In any case, dealing him in any trade diminishes our ability to improve. Any trade aimed at making us better now would be to bring in a piece in addition to Baron and Biedrins- how else can you gain talent without sacrificing the immense defense and rebounding?

If we had included Biedrins in a Garnett deal we would have had to turn around and find another big with comparable skills and production- no easy feat (although a camby for TPE deal might have made sense then).

Questions? Complaints?

(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)

by OptionZero on Oct 3, 2007 5:00 PM PDT up 0 recs