Warriors don't pick up O'Bryant's option, he can go free next summer

by raymondtee on Nov 1, 2007 6:29 PM PDT Comment 35 comments

The Warriors announced Wednesday they will not pick up their third-year option on 7-foot center Patrick O'Bryant's contract, making O'Bryant an unrestricted free agent next summer.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/31/SPFVT438H.DTL

What is your take on this? I had a hunch that they wouldn't pick up his option.

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 35 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

its discouraging

of course, but life will move on. I hope POB does good enough to get his extension. But let him earn it first.

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.

by kenntoe on Oct 31, 2007 7:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

discouraging??

for who? Warriors or POB? This was fully expected IMO. He's had what, 2 good quarters in 2 years and you expect the W's to give him money?

Let's Go Oakland! Gas, Brake, Dip.

by OaktownFunk on Oct 31, 2007 7:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

i'm actually surprised

i've never been big on POB - thought he was soft, doesn't have enough passion or intensity, and i think he has two left feet... but he's young, long and cheap by nba standards.

i don't really see the risk/reward in this.

if he pans out as the back up big man (which means he plays defense and rebounds), they lose him or may have to pay him somewhere around the mid level.

if he's okay or stinks, our 11th/12th man for '08-'09 (who'll be a 22(?) yr old big man) makes $2.37 mill w/ another team option in '09-'10.

i thought that if they would do it, it would be next season.

by the evil monkey on Oct 31, 2007 8:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

i'm thinking

every little penny will count next offseason...see Beans, Andris and Ellis, Monta.

Let's Go Oakland! Gas, Brake, Dip.

by OaktownFunk on Oct 31, 2007 8:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

re-signing him

Interesting move. He makes relatively little money (around $2.5M). I would have thought any risk was relatively low, since you don't need to be a very good center to be worth that little green.

On the flip side, he hasn't shown much outside of sporadic preseason flashes, so it's easy to justify caution.

Our financial situation means we need every last bit of cash next year- no need to lock ourselves into $2.5M, even if it is that little. I think giving Kosta the guaranteed money next year was an even bigger mistake (and probably is why we're letting POB float).

For those concerned about re-signing him, don't worry. According to the Larry Coon FAQ #19:

EARLY BIRD EXCEPTION -- This is a weaker form of the Larry Bird exception, and is also a component of the Veteran Free Agent exception. Players who qualify for this exception are called "Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agents" in the CBA. A player qualifies for this exception after playing two seasons without being waived or changing teams as a free agent. Using this exception, a team may re-sign its own free agent for 175% of his salary the previous season or the average player salary, whichever is greater (see question number 24 for the definition of "average salary." Also note that for 2005-06 they used a defined figure of $5 million). Early Bird contracts must be for at least two seasons (which limits this exception's usefulness -- it's often better to take a lower salary for one more season and then have the full Bird exception available the next season) and no longer than five seasons. A player can receive raises up to 10.5% of the salary in the first season of the contract using this exception.

If the player was a first round draft pick and just completed the second year of his rookie scale contract, but his team did not exercise their option to extend the contract for the third season (see question number 38), then this exception cannot be used to give him a salary greater than he would have received had the team exercised their third year option. In other words, teams can't decline the option in order to get around the salary scale and give the player more money.

If the player is a restricted free agent with two years of service and receives an offer sheet from a new team, the player's prior team may use the Early Bird exception to match the offer sheet

Basically, no one can pay him more than the MLE and we can match any offer still.

Questions? Complaints?

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

by OptionZero on Oct 31, 2007 8:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

yeah

and no one wants to give him that much money or at least i don't.

i wonder how kosta's deal is structured, was the buyout portion ($1.5 mill-ish(?)), front-loaded?

if it was and kosta costs $1 mill-ish, baron doesn't opt out - luxury tax should be $70 mill-ish... warriors should be 45-ish w/o POB (would of been 47-ish w/).

so 25 mill-ish instead of 23 mill-ish for beans, monta, 2008 draft pick(s), kelenna(po), lasme(to), barnes, croshere, pietrus, thud.

sorry if my math is fuzzy, but i refuse (b/c i'm lazy) to spend more than 1-4 minutes on this stuff.

by the evil monkey on Oct 31, 2007 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

buyout

I think the buyout amount is not counted as part of his salary for cap purposes.

Questions? Complaints?

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

by OptionZero on Oct 31, 2007 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

what the warriors contribute

is not counted. but under nba rules, they were only allowed to pitch in $500,000. so they threw kosta a bone, to help him cover the entire buyout (1.5 mill?). see the thursday aug 2 in the "signings" paragraph, for a brief summary: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/warriors/month?blogid=39&year=2007&month=08

by the evil monkey on Oct 31, 2007 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

sensible moves

While true, it appears that if we do get to a point where we're trying to match a higher than scale offer, we'd have to burn the MLE for him since the clause specifically says that the Early Bird exception is gone as a means of paying him more. I can't see that happening, but I doubt very much it's going to be an issue. He may be back next year on a minimum salary. At that price, it could be a good gamble. That's very plausible since of all the min-salary places to go, the Warriors would make sense in that they'd preserve his Bird rights at the end in the unlikely event that he's a player worth signing to another contract.

I don't see him getting much in the way of offers above the min though. Barring a complete turnaround from last year (not just a rise from totally abysmal to not totally abysmal but still rather inconsequential) I don't see a team wagering more than the BAE to call our bluff on matching.

This could be part of an evolving strategy for teams. Robert Swift was similarly not given an option year (I believe it would have been year 4 for him). For marginal players, the risk/reward for trying to down grade the contract below the rookie scale seems to be reasonable. It also means that the POB and Swift are expiring contracts for inclusion in deals as opposed to marginal bargaining chips another team would have to pay for a while.

by jae on Nov 1, 2007 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

sweet

Forgot that we can't pay him more than what his option called for.

Hopefully the big man premium doesn't kick in and someone offers something stupid.

With his limited minutes, he shouldn't rack up sufficient numbers to entice someone into dumping $8M into him (example).

Questions? Complaints?

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

by OptionZero on Nov 1, 2007 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't have a clue

whether or not POB will break out with a good season, but I do believe that he has the potential to do so. Obviously, the Warriors don't think it will happen (they DO control the minutes), because they're willing to risk the chance of losing POB.

Since they can only offer POB the amount of the 3rd year of his original rookie contract and other teams could theoretically offer him up to the MLE, they could lose him. But he would have to have a good year for that to happen, which would entail the desire to play another big man by Nelson.

So, I suspect the logic behind this idea of trying to save $1-$3 million on his contract next season,is that Mullin & Co. are pretty convinced Nelson won't play him under most circumstances.

by San Francisco Slim on Nov 2, 2007 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know..

for $2.2million, that's not much to pay for him for one more season next year. I have a feeling he's going to give us some quality backup minutes this year, just a hunch.

by jlagace on Oct 31, 2007 10:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I guess they're trying to be stingy

But in retrospect, giving Perovic $1.8mil and not giving O'Bryant $2.2mil seems like an unfortunate blunder, considering we've seen some slight flashes from POB. But I guess Perovic's signing WAS in hindsight, and two wrongs don't equal a right..

by jlagace on Oct 31, 2007 10:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great move

By the dubs. This should light a nice fire under POB butt. Dont play good, Not paid good.

by highflya on Oct 31, 2007 11:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

i just have this funny thing

where POB plays out of this world and deep into the rotation.

Then, Biedrins' price tag remains at $12M++ so we let him walk and sign POB instead.

Probably not gonna happen. But that's the first thing that flashed into me when I read this thread.

by lightz0ut on Nov 1, 2007 12:05 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Others

Other guys were not picked up their team:

Robert Swift
Delonte West

West is basically Ellis. I also thought PJ loved him. Strange.

When Ellis leaves for $9M we can grab West for 50cents and come out ahead, lol.

Questions? Complaints?

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

by OptionZero on Nov 1, 2007 9:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Hating on Ellis...

Op. Zero, it seems that you're pretty down on Ellis currently. At least enough to not be saddened by the prospect of his possible departure at season's end. I am curious to see if your tune changes as the season progresses depending on his play.

Just curious... In your eyes, what could the kid to do to seem worth putting out the money for him and having to make sacrifices elsewhere?

by Joe Frank on Nov 1, 2007 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think he's hating on monta as much

as he's tempering himself on the high possibility of his departure.

Let's face it, its a business. And with all business $$ is the common denominator. There are limits to spending in the NBA, and to field a good team you have to spend wisely.

Monta is a magnificent talent who has a real shot at becoming great. Unfortunately, he's being groom to play a position that is already filled by a more magnificent talent that is also the highest paid player on the team.

Its not a matter of whether monta is "worth the money" per se, just that the dubs can't afford his soon-to-be escalated salary and still be as good.

THIS IS OOOAKLAND!!!

by Tim N Chris Burger on Nov 1, 2007 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

tweeners

I guess I'm old school- I hate tweeners, I hate stupid mental mistakes. I want kids to go to college for 3-4 years and work that stuff out so I can watch NBA Players at an even higher level, regardless of talent.

I don't like overpaying for combo guards and tweener forwards.

Monta Ellis would reduce his turnover rate, shoot better than 35% from 3P, and hit 80% of his FT's. I don't care about his raw PPG total, I'm even willing to forgive him for not getting a ton of assists. I do, however, want him to make strides in being a point guard. He doesn't need to be Chris Paul, but he needs to show me at least a little more Tony Parker.

I do not want him to start at shooting guard. I hate small backcourts, I like big, strong SGs. A small SG next to Baron removes his size advantage, since the other team can put the big guard on him sometimes. I want two big guards (I guess I'm like Phil jackson) because I want guys to be able to see the whole court, to be effective double-teamers, and to have post-up options.

Here's my beef:
Ellis will get paid on PPG/APG/RPG, those are the money stats. Not Fg%, not AST/To ratio, not PER, none of that. The way agents negotiate basically ensures Ellis will be paid whether he actually improves his PG skills or not. Ellis at SG means he'll get his points, which means he gets his money, which mean we'd have to pay more than he's truly worth to us.

Questions? Complaints?

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

by OptionZero on Nov 1, 2007 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

wow

i agree 100%.

Monta and Davis does affect Davis' size advantage.

Monta does not look good defensively out there. Don't just look at his SPG. i think that's a misleading stat.

Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.

by kenntoe on Nov 1, 2007 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

SPG

Every guard on the warriors should average at least 1 SPG, no matter how many minutes played.

Positional and team defense is harder to measure, probably because it depends on so many factors.

It's hard to see visually unless u watch the whole court all the time and its even harder to quantify statistically.

Questions? Complaints?

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

by OptionZero on Nov 1, 2007 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

RFAs, no?

thought they were restricted free agents, meaning SEA still controls them like we did our RFAs ...

by hardcore on Nov 1, 2007 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

not RFAs

Question 36 of the Coon FAQ:

Restricted free agency exists only on a limited basis. It is allowed following the fourth year of rookie "scale" contracts for first-round draft picks (see question number 41). It is also allowed for all veteran free agents who have been in the league three or fewer seasons. However, a first round draft pick becomes an unrestricted free agent following his second or third season if his team does not exercise its option to extend the player's rookie scale contract for the next season. All other free agency is limited to unrestricted free agency.

POB, Swift, and West are all unrestricted FA.

However, I think the Arenas rule and "Early bird" rights still kick in, right? Maybe we were wrong earlier then...

I'll email Coon and see what he says.

Questions? Complaints?

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

by OptionZero on Nov 1, 2007 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

from Seattle

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/basketball/337619_sbok01.html

by hardcore on Nov 1, 2007 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

From the actual CBA

I think I was mistaken about the Warriors having certain special rights with regard to the POB. The actual CBA language (not just Larry's FAQ) is quite clear that he'll be an unrestricted FA but we'll have modified "early bird" rights vis a vis the cap.

By my reading of the CBA, we can offer him up to what he would have received under his rookie scale and no more, unless we're to use a different exception or magically are far enough under the cap as to not need an exception.

Basically, it seems like the gamble is that we can still offer him what he would have received, though there's a possibility that another team could offer him a bigger contract. The MLE would do it. We do not have the Arenas provision to work with as that pertains only to restricted free agents. We have no special right to match and teams can offer anything they want provided they've got the exceptions or the cap space.

And he could just decide to walk away for a min contract elsewhere where he felt like he'd be more appreciated.

However, it usually comes down to money. He may or may not be back. His fate is yet unknown. What we did is give him some choices in return for having some choices about what to do with him.

by jae on Nov 2, 2007 12:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Makes sense

The only way he gets an offer bigger than we can match is if he's highly productive in his bench role and gets minutes to prove it.

In such a scenario, the Warriors will get more wins as a result. I can take that.

Questions? Complaints?

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

by OptionZero on Nov 2, 2007 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

POB-prove yourself son!

The Dubs basically are saying, " yo dude, wake the phuk up and play, or else you're outta here!" I like that. Its basic and up front. If you don't play to our #1 pick in the draft expectations, then you have to move on. It comes as no suprise to me that the Dubs didn't pick up the option because POB has never ever done anything to warrant any excitment to keep the guy here.

Now then, with that said, POB needs to step up his game. Play with some intensity, have a better feel for the game and realize that all he is here for 2 things and 2 things only-ALTER/BLOCK SHOTS AND REBOUND. Plain and simple. Good luck POB, were all counting on you...

by gabezgsw on Nov 1, 2007 9:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I WANT POB!

I think we should resign him since we can get him for cheap and besides... WE WILL SIGN HIM!

I am as powerful as 100 times 100 times 100 times 13 Stilts!

by jeppalepala on Nov 1, 2007 11:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

asdf

POB was a waste of a lottery pick.

by J Rich 4 MVP on Nov 1, 2007 4:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

W's leaving options open

If you asked me a month ago I would have said no way to picking up the option, but after his training camp/pre-season hype I was thinking they might pick it up.

This is just another example of them leaving their options open for next year. There are going to be a lot of hard choices and maybe some big surprises. What happens if Baron plays great but we still miss the playoffs? He opts out and we blow the whole thing up? Hey you never know. Though I'm sure nothing that extreme will happen I'm a little unsettled as a fan with so much uncertainty going into next year. I can only hope that Mullin makes the right calls next year when he's faced with all these decisions.

by olympicmike on Nov 1, 2007 5:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

With all the short term contracts

on their roster, maybe they're putting themselves in position to jump in the next time an out of division big name hits the market. Maybe mulson is REALLY embracing that roster flexibility angle.

THIS IS OOOAKLAND!!!

by Tim N Chris Burger on Nov 1, 2007 5:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Could be

I really wouldn't be surprised by anything in the next year. We could easily have basically the same roster a year from now and just as easily have an entirely new team. If the right player becomes available I have no doubt that Mullin would at least be on the phone trying to work something out.

by olympicmike on Nov 1, 2007 8:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

hey guys

hey you guys i am new here and this is my first post. i think patrick obryant will just have to work hard so he can be a better backup center. go warriors!

Because Oakland (Oakland), is just like Compton (Compton).

by dubsball on Nov 1, 2007 9:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

foyle

damn adonal foyle is really livin up to his reputation of being one of the nicest guys around....catered breakfast to the people who basically fired him a few months ago

by 3Kings650 on Nov 2, 2007 1:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

foyle

I dunno about that, he was given 10's of millions of dollars more than he ever should have earned in the NBA. Plus we gave him the opportunity to go play wherever he wanted to

by jlagace on Nov 2, 2007 3:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs