Rondo's deal is $11m a year, Aldridge's is $13m. Split the difference and it's $12m, which is what you said to pay Gay, so there's the relevance.
My point is that you were saying that the fact that Rondo got $11 million makes the notion of Gay getting $12 million ridiculous. I would agree with that except that if a big who doesn't play inside can get $13 million, I don't see why it's such a stretch to say that a talented gunner like Gay couldn't get $12 million next year.
You can't use Rondo's as the benchmark without also acknowledging that imo a significantly inferior player in Lamarcus got paid $10 million more over the life of the contract. I look at it from the view-point that one of the deals was a bargain while one of them was paying overs. I don't see $12 million for Gay as being too bad a deal, even with the economy as it is.
Also the fact that in my opinion it is almost for certain that one of the teams, with cap space, that misses out on a player of the Lebron, Wade, Bosh or Amarie calibre is going to over-react by paying for someone like Gay. Just my opinion tbh.
I'm not arguing about picking up Randolph or not, my point was that just extending a guy because you can, without establishing his market value, and based on the premise that "someone might pay more next year" is exactly what Portland did to Randolph. They gave him a 6 year, $84m contract - to a guy that doesn't pass or play defence. With hindsight, would Portland make that move again?
No Portland don't make that move. Then again, I don't think Gay is the same black-hole that Randolph was/is. Plus Gay isn't the same locker room cancer that Zach has become famous for.
In the end my argument totally hinges on them being willing to take on Randolph's woeful contract, and killing the future of your team, and then not being willing to pay a young stud like Gay. If Memphis don't already have Zach on their books, paying Gay is a much different proposition.
