Originally Posted by mcaj22:
If guys like Jamal Murray and Gordon Hayward are on the max then Ben absolutely should be.
Hes not close to the worst player on a max. That award goes to Chris Paul or John Wall
Gotta be Paul.
It could be Wiggins but he's at least young and his max was cheaper than Paul's.
$40 million/season for that dinosaur is just awful but it's the kind of thing desperate teams will do when they think they see a path to success in front of them. [Reply]
Originally Posted by -King-:
Simmons hurts his team more by providing literally no spacing. To the point Embiid has to turn into a 3 point shooter just to avoid clogging the lane even though he hates shooting 3s.
Imagine if you didn't have to guard him at the 3 point line - and he still shot it anyway and made 28% of threes. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
I don't think guys can become that much better shooters once they get to the league. Similar to my thoughts that a QB isn't going to become accurate once he gets to the NFL.
Maybe a slight improvement, but meh.
Dude was a 67% free throw shooter in college. These were the same red flags that were all over Lonzo.
If you can't even shoot a free throw, then your stroke is so busted that nothing short of tearing it down and starting over will make you an effective shooter.
Jason Kidd is the best example of it. Much like Lonzo and Simmons, he couldn't even shoot free throws and when you watched him on the court, you just knew whatever he put up wasn't going in. Then he hit his 30s, started having some injuries, started slowing down, and tore his jumper apart. He started over from the ground up and completely reinvented himself as a shooter.
The guy he was over the last 9 years or so of his career was far different than the player he came in as. But it wasn't just an organic development of his existing game. He recognized that he was going to have to become a different player so he did. Without that recognition, age would've just made him worse. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Dude was a 67% free throw shooter in college. These were the same red flags that were all over Lonzo.
If you can't even shoot a free throw, then your stroke is so busted that nothing short of tearing it down and starting over will make you an effective shooter.
Jason Kidd is the best example of it. Much like Lonzo and Simmons, he couldn't even shoot free throws and when you watched him on the court, you just knew whatever he put up wasn't going in. Then he hit his 30s, started having some injuries, started slowing down, and tore his jumper apart. He started over from the ground up and completely reinvented himself as a shooter.
The guy he was over the last 9 years or so of his career was far different than the player he came in as. But it wasn't just an organic development of his existing game. He recognized that he was going to have to become a different player so he did. Without that recognition, age would've just made him worse.
Completely tearing down a shot and rebuilding from the ground up though, isn't going to be something that's gonna be very easy. Sure he needs to do it, but when you're talking muscle memory, shit, I dunno.
Back to the original point of "don't draft someone to be a professional when they can't do the basic shit fundamentally well".
A team drafted and plans to play a QB in the NFL that can't accurately throw a football but can run.
Originally Posted by O.city:
Completely tearing down a shot and rebuilding from the ground up though, isn't going to be something that's gonna be very easy. Sure he needs to do it, but when you're talking muscle memory, shit, I dunno.
Back to the original point of "don't draft someone to be a professional when they can't do the basic shit fundamentally well".
A team drafted and plans to play a QB in the NFL that can't accurately throw a football but can run.
Who knows.
Hell yes it would be difficult. And it can really only be done in an offseason where you're completely healthy.
So you just go to the gym with a shooting coach and you start with your base and work from there. 10,000 shots/day until it's something that your muscles start doing without prompting. Otherwise you'll fall into bad habits the moment you end up in competition.
And ideally you do it in a season where expectations are pretty low the following year (and not coming off a playoff run). That gives you a full 4 months or so to really get at it. Moreover, it means the inevitable fatigue that will come from not getting as much rest as you'd like to have gotten in the offseason doesn't sabotage a playoff run.
No, there's absolutely nothing easy or ideal about it. But it's the only way that Simmons can be a truly excellent player, IMO. He absolutely has to present a credible threat from outside 14 feet. You almost don't even have to guard him past the free throw line. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Yeah, the Raptors options are pretty straightforward.
A 1+1 gets him nearly $70 million and when he hits the market in 2021 he'd be eligible for the 35% max that's probably going to get him in the $240 range over those 5 years IF the cap maintains a steady climb. It could be even more if it spikes again.
Like I said, Toronto is a $300+ million over 7 years scenario for him and almost assuredly the most financially lucrative. More than anything, I'm curious how he could finagle a similar situation with the Lakers.
He could take some risk and seemingly do even better if he wanted to by signing with LA. Evidently he can't get the full 5 year deal with LA if he signs a 1+1 but if he did a 2+1, he could probably get something like $110 million over those three years before signing a deal for probably about $250 million over the next 5. So over 8 years he'd make $360 million in that scenario vs. $300 millionish over 7 under the Toronto scenario.
And as I've dug a little more it LOOKS like Kawhi could take a 1+1 with LAL and still have what amounts to full Bird rights under the Early Bird exception. It appears to me that after 2 years, an NBA team can re-sign it's own player for up to 175% of his previous salary while exceeding the cap. Obviously that won't be a problem because his salary will already be maxed. But I was partially right when I said that the major impediment would be the length. The Early Bird only allows for a 4 year deal.
So a 1+1 would get him the same nearly $70 million he could get with Toronto over the next 2 and then in 2021 the Lakers could offer him the 35% max for 4 years rather than for 5. So now we have a 3rd option on the table - $70 million over 2 plus about $190 over 4 totalling roughly $260 million over 6 with LAL.
So the LAL options appear to be the 2+1 setup for about $360 million over 8 years and he reaches FA at 36 years old or he could go with the 1+1 and $260 million over 6 years to reach FA at age 34. The most likely scenario with the Raptors then is either 5/$190 to reach FA at 33 (where he'd still be allowed a max deal thanks to the rule change allowing max contracts through age 38) or a 1+1+5 that would total roughly $310 million and put him in FA at 35.
Honestly, the most money, least risk option may just be to sign a 5 year 30% max deal with Toronto right now (worth roughly $191 million) and if he maintains this level of play he could go get ANOTHER max deal, this time a 35% max, that could probably be worth another $280 million or so.
The 'low risk' aspect is that he's locked in $191 million immediately. The high upside aspect is that he'll hit the market at juuuuuust a young enough age that he might be able to convince the Raptors to pony up another 5 year max to keep him in Toronto for the rest of his career. If he can, that's going to be over $550 in lifetime NBA earnings and it would crush Lebron's record (by then) of roughly $387 million.
I guess the bottom line is that this is going to be monopoly money either way. Dude's gonna be rich beyond comprehension.
The NBA really needs to do away with max contracts. They're so fucking stupid. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
HAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
You fucking serious, Clark?
Ben Simmons has a ridiculous ego. Like, so bad that he submarined an entire program in college.
He can't shoot and won't rebuild his stroke. What you call 'unselfish' is actually PEAK selfishness because his refusal to shoot means teams don't even pretend like they are going to guard him outside of 18 feet. He absolutely ruins spacing.
His refusal to shoot isn't because he's Steve Nash out there seeing all the angles. It's because he sucks at it and is too proud to fix it. So he actively hurts his teammates by not being a credible threat to shoot.
Ben Simmons may well get better, but he has to because the player he is right now can be no better than the 3rd or 4th best player on a championship team. The guy is all hat, no cattle.
There's a lot of people that believe he shoots better right handed as he really is right handed. But he insists on shooting Lefty for some reason. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Yeah, the Raptors options are pretty straightforward.
A 1+1 gets him nearly $70 million and when he hits the market in 2021 he'd be eligible for the 35% max that's probably going to get him in the $240 range over those 5 years IF the cap maintains a steady climb. It could be even more if it spikes again.
Like I said, Toronto is a $300+ million over 7 years scenario for him and almost assuredly the most financially lucrative. More than anything, I'm curious how he could finagle a similar situation with the Lakers.
He could take some risk and seemingly do even better if he wanted to by signing with LA. Evidently he can't get the full 5 year deal with LA if he signs a 1+1 but if he did a 2+1, he could probably get something like $110 million over those three years before signing a deal for probably about $250 million over the next 5. So over 8 years he'd make $360 million in that scenario vs. $300 millionish over 7 under the Toronto scenario.
And as I've dug a little more it LOOKS like Kawhi could take a 1+1 with LAL and still have what amounts to full Bird rights under the Early Bird exception. It appears to me that after 2 years, an NBA team can re-sign it's own player for up to 175% of his previous salary while exceeding the cap. Obviously that won't be a problem because his salary will already be maxed. But I was partially right when I said that the major impediment would be the length. The Early Bird only allows for a 4 year deal.
So a 1+1 would get him the same nearly $70 million he could get with Toronto over the next 2 and then in 2021 the Lakers could offer him the 35% max for 4 years rather than for 5. So now we have a 3rd option on the table - $70 million over 2 plus about $190 over 4 totalling roughly $260 million over 6 with LAL.
So the LAL options appear to be the 2+1 setup for about $360 million over 8 years and he reaches FA at 36 years old or he could go with the 1+1 and $260 million over 6 years to reach FA at age 34. The most likely scenario with the Raptors then is either 5/$190 to reach FA at 33 (where he'd still be allowed a max deal thanks to the rule change allowing max contracts through age 38) or a 1+1+5 that would total roughly $310 million and put him in FA at 35.
Honestly, the most money, least risk option may just be to sign a 5 year 30% max deal with Toronto right now (worth roughly $191 million) and if he maintains this level of play he could go get ANOTHER max deal, this time a 35% max, that could probably be worth another $280 million or so.
The 'low risk' aspect is that he's locked in $191 million immediately. The high upside aspect is that he'll hit the market at juuuuuust a young enough age that he might be able to convince the Raptors to pony up another 5 year max to keep him in Toronto for the rest of his career. If he can, that's going to be over $550 in lifetime NBA earnings and it would crush Lebron's record (by then) of roughly $387 million.
I guess the bottom line is that this is going to be monopoly money either way. Dude's gonna be rich beyond comprehension.
My mind is blown that is way to much math for me :-)
In all seriousness I don't see him doing a 5 year deal in Toronto. I could definitely see him do a 1+1 so he could defend the title and if that fails go wherever next year. Probably could do a sign and trade at that point like KD did and get his max contract. [Reply]
Originally Posted by -King-:
The NBA really needs to do away with max contracts. They're so fucking stupid.
You wanna know how stupid they are? Here's a downright shocking set of figures to run....
D'angelo Russell will be a free agent eligible for a 4 year max deal entering his age 27 season having already earned $140 million. Let's just say that he continues to be an all-star level player for the next 4 years; not a superstar but this kind of guy with some marginal improvement. He'll get another 5 year max deal from someone (presumably by sign and trade if needed) and it will be a 30% max instead of the 25%.
And then lets say he plays well during that period - he'll hit the market at 32 - a year younger than CP3 was when he hit the market. And someone is ALWAYS stupid in the NBA so he may well be able to get ANOTHER max deal, this time a 35% max.
Now I'm not going to say any of this is likely, but it isn't exactly impossible either. If those things happen, D'Angelo Russell will bank lifetime earnings exceeding $700 million. Even if he can't get 2 of those 5 year maxes and 'settles' for a 2nd 4 year max taking him into FA at 31 w/ another 4 year max taking him through his age 34 season, the dude would end up near $570 in lifetime earnings through age 34.
And that's what happens when true superstars like Davis and Kawhi and Lebron have their earning potential suppressed by a max contract. It has to go somewhere and it's always going up, so guys like D'Angelo Russell have an outside shot to one day hold the record for most lifetime NBA earnings. [Reply]
Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy:
What was the original purpose of putting a max on deals anyway? Anyone know?
The salary cap in the NBA is also a joke. It was supposed to stop superteams from happening and it seems like it has done the opposite.
I could be wrong but it is for teams to be able to try to keep their players by giving them the only chance to sign players to a certain level of money and also go over the cap. [Reply]
Originally Posted by dirk digler:
My mind is blown that is way to much math for me :-)
In all seriousness I don't see him doing a 5 year deal in Toronto. I could definitely see him do a 1+1 so he could defend the title and if that fails go wherever next year. Probably could do a sign and trade at that point like KD did and get his max contract.
If he's okay going to the Clippers, that might work.
But it would be DAMN tough sledding to get him to the Lakers. I guess LAL could give Kuzma an extension and make him the centerpiece of the trade going back. Then maybe take on some contracts here and there to balance out the rest. Dunno - that one starts to get a little above my head. [Reply]
Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy:
What was the original purpose of putting a max on deals anyway? Anyone know?
The salary cap in the NBA is also a joke. It was supposed to stop superteams from happening and it seems like it has done the opposite.
Same thing that a cap is always ostensibly (and pretextually) for - to give teams with lesser revenue streams a fighting chance to keep their homegrown players and keep fan interest up in those areas.
Hasn't worked that way because now these guys can make the same amount just about anywhere (though for a year less guaranteed) so they simply go where they have friends or they can win a title or they like the city or whatever. With money evened out, teams like OKC and the 'Wolves are still fighting uphill, just for different reasons.
I also figure it had something to do with owners just trying to protect themselves from themselves. The best example and maybe the straw that broke the backs was Michael Jordan making literally his teams ENTIRE salary cap. And then some. Dude was making $33 million in an era where the cap was like $27 million. And Pippen was making about 1/6th of that.
And no, I have no idea how the hell Jordan managed to get the Bulls to pay him that. Obviously nobody else in the league could have approached it so I guess his leverage would've been 'pay me or I'll retire...again'.
But I'm betting a lot of money that whole sage put a serious scare into the owners so they tied max salary to cap percentage and then the minimum spending to revenue (and thus cap) and away we went. [Reply]
