2015 NBA Offseason Thread

[bhlloy]

Jared Cunningham formerly of Oregon State looks like he could be a useful player. Looks really good during the Jazz summer league game I'm watching.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by nol

I'm using Chris Paul's All-Defense appearances dating back to his New Orleans days. The only place defensive rating came in was that the Clippers have an average defensive rating as a team despite apparently having 2 of the 5 best defensive players in the league and the best overall defender in Jordan.

Joe Dumars had a defensive rating of 110 because teams didn't play as hard defensively then and the Pistons played really slowly, which made their defense seem much better than it actually was. It's not mutually exclusive for him to be one of the better defensive guards of that time and to have that defensive rating.

Seems to me to be a lot of stat cherry picking. And considering that there is a lot of questions about the value of these stats, it makes it a lot harder to rate players defensively.

I have watched Draymond Green plenty of times. He just doesn't appear to me to be a Top 30 player.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Seems to me to be a lot of stat cherry picking. And considering that there is a lot of questions about the value of these stats, it makes it a lot harder to rate players defensively.

I have watched Draymond Green plenty of times. He just doesn't appear to me to be a Top 30 player.

The only individual stat I used was to show that DeAndre Jordan is about an average rim protector when you said that his impact in that regard is more meaningful than the defensive versatility players like Green and Leonard offer their teams (teams that were first and second in the league defensively). Other than that, it's saying that having the league's best defensive player at the most important defensive position but a middle-of-the-pack team defense simply does not add up.

The Clippers' offense was the most efficient in the league in the regular season, so the difference between the Clippers' and the Warriors' defense is obviously quite meaningful in terms of regular season and postseason success.

[stevew]

I guess I I get the science but if you don't already have Klay and Curry a guy like Green probably isn't some efficiency monster. He's playing with such exceptional shooters that I don't see how that can't add to his value.

I don't think he's overpaid or anything but I also don't think he's necessarily the guy. his value exists in on how he complements the other guys

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by nol

The only individual stat I used was to show that DeAndre Jordan is about an average rim protector when you said that his impact in that regard is more meaningful than the defensive versatility players like Green and Leonard offer their teams (teams that were first and second in the league defensively). Other than that, it's saying that having the league's best defensive player at the most important defensive position but a middle-of-the-pack team defense simply does not add up.

The Clippers' offense was the most efficient in the league in the regular season, so the difference between the Clippers' and the Warriors' defense is obviously quite meaningful in terms of regular season and postseason success.

But then in trying to combat the Jordan thing, you point out Bogut's quality there and don't recognize the effect that can have in making Green look great defending at his spot.

If I'm putting an at best average offensive guy in the Top 30 players of the league on the basis of his D, I would definitely want to pick a guy playing the most important defensive position (C), and not a good perimeter/man to man defender. If Green was a better offensive player, I get it, but he's not.

[stevew]

Dumb internet guess, but is there any possible way that Kobe gets traded to Cleveland for Tristan Thompson and Brandon Heywoods expiring contract,? Kobe has a no trade, but it almost seems like the wild type of thing that can happen.

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by stevew

Dumb internet guess, but is there any possible way that Kobe gets trades traded traded to Cleveland for Tristan Thompson and Brandon Heywoods expiring contract,? Kobe has a no trade, but it almost seems like the wild type of thing that can happen.

I'd imagine Jamal "4 point play" Crawford would be going to the Cavs way before Kobe.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

But then in trying to combat the Jordan thing, you point out Bogut's quality there and don't recognize the effect that can have in making Green look great defending at his spot.

If I'm putting an at best average offensive guy in the Top 30 players of the league on the basis of his D, I would definitely want to pick a guy playing the most important defensive position (C), and not a good perimeter/man to man defender. If Green was a better offensive player, I get it, but he's not.

You do realize that many of the very best players in the league are really good offensively and average defensively, right?

Bogut didn't play nearly that many minutes per game; Green was the center for many of Golden State's most effective lineups during the regular season as well as the Finals. On offense, Green is clearly one of the best ballhandling/passing PFs in the league while also being an average shooter.

Here are 15 free spots for players better than Green: James, Davis, Curry, Westbrook, Durant, Harden, Leonard, M. Gasol, Cousins, Wall, Aldridge, Paul, Griffin, Howard, Irving. You can't get 15 more unless you pretend a bunch of players like Pau Gasol, Dwyane Wade and Dirk are as good today as they were 5 years ago.

Hell, DeAndre Jordan is probably somewhat close to being one of the 30 best players, but it would be almost as much for what he can do offensively (rebounding, dunking, forcing teams to hack). There is definitely plenty of room for guys who have an impact at both ends of the floor rather than someone who averages 18 points a game and sucks at defense.

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by nol

You do realize that many of the very best players in the league are really good offensively and average defensively, right?

Bogut didn't play nearly that many minutes per game; Green was the center for many of Golden State's most effective lineups during the regular season as well as the Finals. On offense, Green is clearly one of the best ballhandling/passing PFs in the league while also being an average shooter.

Here are 15 free spots for players better than Green: James, Davis, Curry, Westbrook, Durant, Harden, Leonard, M. Gasol, Cousins, Wall, Aldridge, Paul, Griffin, Howard, Irving. You can't get 15 more unless you pretend a bunch of players like Pau Gasol, Dwyane Wade and Dirk are as good today as they were 5 years ago.

Hell, DeAndre Jordan is probably somewhat close to being one of the 30 best players, but it would be almost as much for what he can do offensively (rebounding, dunking, forcing teams to hack). There is definitely plenty of room for guys who have an impact at both ends of the floor rather than someone who averages 18 points a game and sucks at defense.

Pau Gasol had a much higher PER and offensive win share while being 5th in the NBA in defensive win shares. Unless 5th place in the is suddenly shit then I guess you stand correct. Gasol had 48 more blocks this season. 48. I didn't imagine that number. It's "cuarenta y ocho mas". Even in Spanish it's still 48 more. Gasol was 4th in rebounding this year. That's 4th with 11.8 a game. Green had 8.2 rebounds per game. Guess what 8.2 rpg isn't... good enough for 4th place in the NBA. Let's get to points actually scored. Green with 11.7 and Gasol with 18.5. Wanna take a wild fucking guess which is more? So besides Gasol having more points, rebounds, and blocks he didn't outstat Green in you "intangibles" and defensive MVP voting.

La de freaking da...

Here's the parts of the game that don't qualify Green as top 30:

1) Usage %. He was 297th in the NBA on percentage of being used by his team on the offensive end. If he was a top 30 guy, I would expect his team to use him more.

2) FT%. Call me old school but you have to be better than 66% from the line which he has shot the last 2 seasons. It was a big knock I had against Blake and he worked hard on improving his shot. Not saying Green can't but the difference is right now, he is a 66% shooter. The Warriors win a lot of games because Thompson and Curry are above 87% from the line. Lots of players you consider not top 30 are excellent from the line and that is part of their offensive game. Dirk... Lillard... Butler... Teague, heck maybe even Heyward. Just as much as you want to preach that everyone ignores Green's defense you fail to see what these players do on offense by drawing fouls and hitting the shots.

3) 92 starts in 3 seasons. You can tell me it's not fair but I need more of a resume to declare he is a top 15/30 players. Personally I don't consider any rookie/soph in the top 30 right now. There is damn sure no way an 11-3-8 guy is top 30 in the NBA unless he is averaging 7 steals + blocks a game.

You can preach to me that youth is always better but it simply isn't the case.

[nol]

Originally Posted by murrayyyyy

Pau Gasol had a much higher PER and offensive win share while being 5th in the NBA in defensive win shares. Unless 5th place in the is suddenly shit then I guess you stand correct. Gasol had 48 more blocks this season. 48. I didn't imagine that number. It's "cuarenta y ocho mas". Even in Spanish it's still 48 more. Gasol was 4th in rebounding this year. That's 4th with 11.8 a game. Green had 8.2 rebounds per game. Guess what 8.2 rpg isn't... good enough for 4th place in the NBA. Let's get to points actually scored. Green with 11.7 and Gasol with 18.5. Wanna take a wild fucking guess which is more? So besides Gasol having more points, rebounds, and blocks he didn't outstat Green in you "intangibles" and defensive MVP voting.

La de freaking da...

Here's the parts of the game that don't qualify Green as top 30:

1) Usage %. He was 297th in the NBA on percentage of being used by his team on the offensive end. If he was a top 30 guy, I would expect his team to use him more.

2) FT%. Call me old school but you have to be better than 66% from the line which he has shot the last 2 seasons. It was a big knock I had against Blake and he worked hard on improving his shot. Not saying Green can't but the difference is right now, he is a 66% shooter. The Warriors win a lot of games because Thompson and Curry are above 87% from the line. Lots of players you consider not top 30 are excellent from the line and that is part of their offensive game. Dirk... Lillard... Butler... Teague, heck maybe even Heyward. Just as much as you want to preach that everyone ignores Green's defense you fail to see what these players do on offense by drawing fouls and hitting the shots.

3) 92 starts in 3 seasons. You can tell me it's not fair but I need more of a resume to declare he is a top 15/30 players. Personally I don't consider any rookie/soph in the top 30 right now. There is damn sure no way an 11-3-8 guy is top 30 in the NBA unless he is averaging 7 steals + blocks a game.

You can preach to me that youth is always better but it simply isn't the case.

You can talk about rebounds and blocks until you're blue in the face, but defense is about preventing the other team from making baskets. Gasol got a lot of empty, uncontested rebounds, as evidenced by the Bulls having their worst defensive and rebounding season by far during Thibs' tenure.

You saying that Green's low usage means he can't be a top player is like saying James Harden isn't a top 10 player because he usually guards the other team's worst offensive player. It's one skill of many and already factored in to the overall value of the player.

LOL the Warriors won like 50 regular season games by 10 or more and sat their starters in how many 4th quarters? I'm sure clutch free throw shooting had a lot to do with their success!

[Vince, Pt. II]

Also, using usage rating to ding Draymond Green seems silly when he has Klay Thompson and Steph Curry in front of him on offense. The argument being made in favor of Green isn't that he's some all-around wunderkind; it's that he is a ridiculously great defender who is average to above average offensively.

[whomario]

I think you are both using a little too much hyperbole

I think that you are both right, in a way. If you look to start a team, build around a guy who you depend on too create plays, i think there are 30 "better" players than Green. However, if you already have a Top 10 offensive guy and a good team overall ? You take him above pretty much every fringe top15-20 guy even, because you don´t need what they offer. You need what Green offers. Which is being able to play just about any style of basketball on both ends. He can pass the ball, shoot a little, put it on the floor, mover without the ball. He can also defend bigger players defensively and stick with small ball PFs and even bigger SFs and is a legitimate savant when it comes to defending the Pick and Roll and rotating. Those are all rare and valuable traits in a league where matchups and the pick and roll are such huge factors. And Green combines a lot of them.
There´s a reason why the whole league is in fact NOT going small despite what happened the last few years. Because it´s not as easy to do that and still have devensive integrity.

I think that you can much more easily cover Greens deficit of not being a guy who creates offense (or is all that efficient even), than it would be to find a player even 80% as good defensively and versatile as Green. And yeah, i would claim the same about Gobert down the line.

I think in todays NBA more than ever, it is about fit and flexibility. And Green fits in every style of play. That has huge value. And i personally think that indeed both the Mavs and the Cavs would be better off with Green instead of Love and Parsons and the Warriors would be worse. However, you would definitely have a better chance at winning games with Love or Parsons as your No2 guy (Neither is a No1 guy in terms of winning teams, imo) IF you have a good team defensively aside from them. (though Parsons is not too terrible i think)

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

Also, using usage rating to ding Draymond Green seems silly when he has Klay Thompson and Steph Curry in front of him on offense. The argument being made in favor of Green isn't that he's some all-around wunderkind; it's that he is a ridiculously great defender who is average to above average offensively.

Not really. When you look at Marreese Speights usage % on the team it's up there with Curry and Thompson. Same with Barbosa. Speights/Lee are used for the high rub/pick and roll during the weave play they like to run to free up Thompson. The problem I have is he is seen here as above average offensively.

66% from the line, used on about 1 out of every 6 offensive plays by the Warriors and doesn't get a ton of offensive rebounds. What is he doing on the offensive end that suggests he is above average? Not getting in the way of the ball?

Here's what he needs to work on to improve on the offensive end. Work on the corner 3. He shoots 33% from 3 point range and 100% of those shots he made this year were assisted(74% of his 2 pt shots are off an assist). That means he is getting a lot of open 3 looks consider he had 330 shots from 3 point land this year.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by murrayyyyy

Not really. When you look at Marreese Speights usage % on the team it's up there with Curry and Thompson. Same with Barbosa. Speights/Lee are used for the high rub/pick and roll during the weave play they like to run to free up Thompson.

To be fair, usage% does not consider Assists and only factors in Turnovers. Because when you watch Speights play, he basically shoots every time he gets the ball and doesn´t drive or passes (and the stats back that up as well). So its only natural for him to have a high usage%. He certainly does not have a higher usage within the GSW team than Steph Curry, as per the stat he however does because of the very characteristics of his role. (same with Barbosa, whose role was basically to either shoot or drive to the basket on the move)

Green touches the ball more than Speights and is a lot more involved in the execution of the play design than Speights is.

Green touches the ball about 65 times per game, which is more than Monta Ellis, Love, Aldridge and also Anthony Davis btw. There´s less than a handful of bigs touching the ball more (Pau, Marc, Cousins). Granted, most of his touches are quick handoffs or passes, but that´s valuable as well in a system predicated on ball movement. (only Noah and Blake have more passes per game among bigs btw)

As to what he does: He moves off the ball, he gets into defenses or to the ellbow for quick passes, he screens a ton and he provides great spacing in general due to movement and positioning. Not as easy to quantify as relentlessly chucking the ball (not even blaming Speights, that was his role: get free 15 feet from the basket or pick&pop and then shoot the ball basically every time. No more, no less)

Theres really no reason or grounds to make him out to be a non-factor on offense.

all per NBA.com/Stats

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by whomario

I think you are both using a little too much hyperbole

I think that you are both right, in a way. If you look to start a team, build around a guy who you depend on too create plays, i think there are 30 "better" players than Green. However, if you already have a Top 10 offensive guy and a good team overall ? You take him above pretty much every fringe top15-20 guy even, because you don´t need what they offer. You need what Green offers. Which is being able to play just about any style of basketball on both ends. He can pass the ball, shoot a little, put it on the floor, mover without the ball. He can also defend bigger players defensively and stick with small ball PFs and even bigger SFs and is a legitimate savant when it comes to defending the Pick and Roll and rotating. Those are all rare and valuable traits in a league where matchups and the pick and roll are such huge factors. And Green combines a lot of them.
There´s a reason why the whole league is in fact NOT going small despite what happened the last few years. Because it´s not as easy to do that and still have devensive integrity.

I think that you can much more easily cover Greens deficit of not being a guy who creates offense (or is all that efficient even), than it would be to find a player even 80% as good defensively and versatile as Green. And yeah, i would claim the same about Gobert down the line.

I think in todays NBA more than ever, it is about fit and flexibility. And Green fits in every style of play. That has huge value. And i personally think that indeed both the Mavs and the Cavs would be better off with Green instead of Love and Parsons and the Warriors would be worse. However, you would definitely have a better chance at winning games with Love or Parsons as your No2 guy (Neither is a No1 guy in terms of winning teams, imo) IF you have a good team defensively aside from them. (though Parsons is not too terrible i think)

This is probably the correct answer.

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

This is probably the correct answer.

It is but I'd rather have these type of discussions compared to summer league highlights or offseason threads discussing 30 pictures of drunk nba players like on another forum.

[whomario]

Ty Lawson and Maurice Ndour are offended by this comment ...

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by whomario

Ty Lawson and Maurice Ndour are offended by this comment ...

Ty's not sober enough to read my comment.

[nol]

Originally Posted by whomario

I think you are both using a little too much hyperbole

I think that you are both right, in a way. If you look to start a team, build around a guy who you depend on too create plays, i think there are 30 "better" players than Green. However, if you already have a Top 10 offensive guy and a good team overall ? You take him above pretty much every fringe top15-20 guy even, because you don´t need what they offer. You need what Green offers. Which is being able to play just about any style of basketball on both ends. He can pass the ball, shoot a little, put it on the floor, mover without the ball. He can also defend bigger players defensively and stick with small ball PFs and even bigger SFs and is a legitimate savant when it comes to defending the Pick and Roll and rotating. Those are all rare and valuable traits in a league where matchups and the pick and roll are such huge factors. And Green combines a lot of them.
There´s a reason why the whole league is in fact NOT going small despite what happened the last few years. Because it´s not as easy to do that and still have devensive integrity.

I think that you can much more easily cover Greens deficit of not being a guy who creates offense (or is all that efficient even), than it would be to find a player even 80% as good defensively and versatile as Green. And yeah, i would claim the same about Gobert down the line.

I think in todays NBA more than ever, it is about fit and flexibility. And Green fits in every style of play. That has huge value. And i personally think that indeed both the Mavs and the Cavs would be better off with Green instead of Love and Parsons and the Warriors would be worse. However, you would definitely have a better chance at winning games with Love or Parsons as your No2 guy (Neither is a No1 guy in terms of winning teams, imo) IF you have a good team defensively aside from them. (though Parsons is not too terrible i think)

You are still relying on the notion that to be one of the best 30 players, you need to be the go-to scorer for a team. You yourself said it's easier to have the 2nd-best guy be someone who's more of a one-dimensional scorer than to build around a Kevin Love and try to find multiple people who can cover for him defensively. The same thing applies all the way down - it's always easier to find decent offensive players, and the difference between what Chandler Parsons and some readily available player like Ersan Illysova can do on that end of the court is probably less than the difference between Parsons and the very best offensive players.

Having Love/Parsons, a better offensive player than them, and three good defensive players on top of that (who aren't so bad at offense to nullify having two good offensive players) is definitely violating the "fantasy draft" assumption that people were using to say that Green would not be one of the top 30.

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

This is probably the correct answer.

which I thought I put more succinctly by saying, "Draymond Green is better defensively than someone like Dirk or Lillard is offensively and better offensively than those players are defensively" at first, but apparently anything I say is much more contentious

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I think after the obvious 12-15 complete studs a strict player ranking is foolish because most flawed players are heavily team dependent.

Which is why I'm leaving plenty of leeway on where Draymond Green would be exactly, but there are not 15-20 more players after those guys who are definitely better than him. You're getting into Monta Ellis/Jeff Teague territory at that point, which is a joke.

[BishopMVP]

I think after the obvious 12-15 complete studs a strict player ranking is foolish because most flawed players are heavily team dependent. Carmelo Anthony is better than Draymond Green, but the Warriors would be worse off with Anthony (and Green would look worse on the Knicks.) Blake Griffin's a better player than DeAndre Jordan or Lamarcus Aldridge, but an Aldridge/Jordan combo would be better than a Aldridge/Griffin one (and probably than a Griffin/Jordan one).

Btw, I'm loving Terry Rozier more and more with each game. For some reason people are comparing him to Dwyane Wade (except smaller, and not as good a finisher), but I think the upside comp is Kyle Lowry or Eric Bledsoe. He needs to learn to finish at the rim better and develop a pull up, but with that lightning quick first step he can get into the lane at will, and his wingspan and athleticism will make him a tenacious on-ball defender. I'd still prefer Stanley Johnson or Myles Turner (who I personally would have taken over everyone but Towns and Mudiay), but even after just a few Summer League games he's shown that the people calling him a reach on draft night had no idea what they were talking about. Granted, I've always been seduced by lightning-quick guards, but he seems a lot smarter offensively and a lot better shooter than Tony Allen or Marcus Banks.

Originally Posted by Arles

We will see the patience that Philly ownership has with Hinkie if Embiid doesn't return to form, Noel plays out the QO and leaves and these Euros/future picks don't pan out. I can't imagine being an owner of a team who stinks for 4-5 seasons and I'm left with Okafor, 2-3 recent lottery picks, the rights to Saric and a broken down Embiid. That's a very real possibility in a couple seasons.

Originally Posted by Arles

Green is somewhere between 30 and 40, but Noel is nothing like Green. DeAndre is the ceiling for Noel, but he's a ways from that. Maybe at his peak, Noel can be a top 35 guy - but by then he will probably have played his QO out and joined a different team.

Noel is a nice player, but not a superstar. Embiid isn't even a nice player and Saric just averaged 10 and 6 on 43% shooting in Europe (30% from the Euro 3). These three are far from "nailed picks". Okafor appears to be the best of the bunch, but he was just drafted.

- Noel's upside comp isn't DeAndre Jordan, it's Serge Ibaka (who's definitely a "Top 30" player imo.) Granted, Ibaka was shooting a higher percentage than Noel even during his rookie year, and it's questionable if Noel will ever get close to his level as a jump shooter, but at least some of that was being able to shoot clean open looks after Durant and Westbrook drew attention. Defensively DeAndre is awesome as a strict rim protector and rebounder, but only in a specific scheme while Ibaka and Noel are more versatile and able to play further out and switch more on P&R's. In a league where teams are more and more comfortable "going small", and attacking mismatches in the playoffs that versatility is super valuable.

- Noel is certainly a great pick considering the rest of that top 10, and early returns on Okafor look promising, but you don't need to nail every pick. You can blow 5 in a row, have an Anthony Davis fall into your laps and suddenly you're set up well. Philly isn't going to ignore free agency and trades once they feel they found their franchise cornerstone.

- Lastly, you keep saying Noel will play out the QO and leave, while the chances of that happening are near zero. No RFA coming off a rookie deal has ever turned down max or even near-max money. Every player who has turned down a deal and played under the QO has done so because they were betting on themselves making more money than the team was offering (and off the top of my head I think every player has won that bet.) Philly will still try to lowball Noel because that's what every team does with RFA's other than the obvious super-max players like AD and D-Rose, but if push comes to shove Philly will have no problem offering full max because unlike other teams where $3-$4m/y can really matter they're nowhere near the cap or the luxury tax.

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Btw, I'm loving Terry Rozier more and more with each game. For some reason people are comparing him to Dwyane Wade (except smaller, and not as good a finisher), but I think the upside comp is Kyle Lowry or Eric Bledsoe.

Not so sure about Wade comparisons but I think some of the Mookie Blaylock comparisons may be better. Starting to rethink keeping Smart now?

[stevew]

If Ty Lawson has no trade value, I'd love to see the Cavs make a play for him. I guess we can't give up a first til like 2019 though.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

- Lastly, you keep saying Noel will play out the QO and leave, while the chances of that happening are near zero. No RFA coming off a rookie deal has ever turned down max or even near-max money. Every player who has turned down a deal and played under the QO has done so because they were betting on themselves making more money than the team was offering (and off the top of my head I think every player has won that bet.) Philly will still try to lowball Noel because that's what every team does with RFA's other than the obvious super-max players like AD and D-Rose, but if push comes to shove Philly will have no problem offering full max because unlike other teams where $3-$4m/y can really matter they're nowhere near the cap or the luxury tax.

It will be interesting to see if Philly values Noel. If they don't think they have their superstar, will they commit to him or lowball him and trade him in his last year?

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It will be interesting to see if Philly values Noel. If they don't think they have their superstar, will they commit to him or lowball him and trade him in his last year?

I think they'll try to extend him next year and see if they can get him for about 15m/year.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by murrayyyyy

Not so sure about Wade comparisons but I think some of the Mookie Blaylock comparisons may be better. Starting to rethink keeping Smart now?

Rozier and Smart don't really have overlapping skillsets and they'd seem to pair really well together, especially because Smart has the size to pair with IT4 in any matchup while Rozier/AB only work with IT4 against certain backcourts. Marcus Smart's still available in the right trade, but that has nothing to do with Rozier. Avery Bradley is really the guy who looks more and more expendable...

I don't exactly love Gallinari as a trade target, but something like Bradley/Sullinger/Young for Gallinari would be a good fit. (Probably not enough for Denver to pull the trigger though. Maybe add in a lottery-protected 1st round pick too.)

Derrick Favors is the other guy I'd love to see us try to get. I think he's really in for a breakout, but simply can't be paired with Rudy Gobert on offense so Utah will actually listen to offers for him.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It will be interesting to see if Philly values Noel. If they don't think they have their superstar, will they commit to him or lowball him and trade him in his last year?

Those aren't mutually exclusive. Signing him to an extension won't hurt his trade value, and every million per year you can shave off what he agrees to only increases that trade value. The idea that they'll actually lowball him to the point he takes the QO, then let him play out the QO and lose an asset like that for nothing is ludicrous though.

[Arles]

Monroe turned down 5-60 to play out the QO. I could see Noel doing that as well if he doesn't get a max RFA deal from Philly. Another interesting scenario is does Philly match a max RFA offer for Noel if Hinkie hasn't found his star? The cap will be shooting up and some team may go that route with Noel. If he's not going to match, I could see Philly doing what the Bucks did with Knight or OKC with Reggie and trade him at the deadline leading to RFA. That move would also "reset the timeline" again- which is something Hinkie enjoys. I'd say it's 50-50 Noel remains in Philly 2 seasons from now.

[Arles]

And if I'm Noel, it's hard to argue that passing on 5-60 to play out the QO didn't work out for Monroe. After the season, he signed a 3-50 deal with Milwaukee. So, he ended up playing out a 4-55 contract - plus got the opportunity to chose the team he played at for 3 of those seasons (leaving Det for the Bucks). Finally, he gave up $5 mil for the chance to be a FA one year earlier (and maybe get another payday). Noel could easily do the same in Philly given the salary structure is going to be much different the year after his QO than the one before it (in RFA) because of the new cap coming in.

[BishopMVP]

Exactly. Monroe turned down $12m/y because he thought he could get more... and he got $17m/y. If Detroit had offered Monroe even $15m/y he would have signed last year.

Jimmy Butler turned down 4/$48 or whatever because he felt he could make more... and he did.

Eric Bledsoe threatened to play out the QO and then caved when the Suns upped their offer.

NO RFA coming off that ~$10-$15m rookie contract has turned down that first huge, set for life, payday if they were offered it because of a dispute with management - only when they felt they could make more $$$.

[Arles]

And going into the cap change of 2017, there's a strong case for Noel to play out the QO and then be a UFA with a cap rising to 90 mil. The only way Noel signs is if he gets a 4-year max offer in RFA. And philly would have to decide if they want to match.

My prediction is Noel gets dealt at the deadline going into his RFA for more picks and contracts (and maybe an average young player). Then, once again, the scheme will reset.

[stevew]

Why hasn't Tristan Thompson signed? I'm guessing that 5/80 offer that was floated out there was a BS negotiation ploy by his agent.

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by stevew

Why hasn't Tristan Thompson signed? I'm guessing that 5/80 offer that was floated out there was a BS negotiation ploy by his agent.

He's a RFA isn't he? No real reason for the Cavs to sign him to that. Same thing I think with Delly as he isn't signed yet.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Arles

And going into the cap change of 2017, there's a strong case for Noel to play out the QO and then be a UFA with a cap rising to 90 mil. The only way Noel signs is if he gets a 4-year max offer in RFA. And philly would have to decide if they want to match.

My prediction is Noel gets dealt at the deadline going into his RFA for more picks and contracts (and maybe an average young player). Then, once again, the scheme will reset.

You might be right about them flipping him for future assets. I don't think you are, but I wouldn't be shocked, and if that happens you'll have a pretty good argument that it's a ponzi scheme. However, there is zero chance that Noel plays out that QO if Philly offers the max, and I think you're off on when the cap goes up. By my math Noel will be an RFA when it's at ~$90m, and potentially a UFA when it's at ~$110m, but that also means that Philly has even less of a reason to lowball him.

By the way, as a commenter on a board based on a text sim I love these salary cap tweaks, but it's unbelievable that the two sides can't agree on a cap smoothing plan. If you think this offseason and next are crazy, just wait until the years when the cap is stagnant or actually drops.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by stevew

Why hasn't Tristan Thompson signed? I'm guessing that 5/80 offer that was floated out there was a BS negotiation ploy by his agent.

Boston's in a place where we won't officially sign Jae Crowder or complete the Gerald Wallace/David Lee trade until we have to because it gives us a little more flexibility re the salary cap. Idk how holding off on signing TT would benefit Cleveland because I think they're over the cap regardless, but I would assume that's the reason since we all know TT is re-signing due to LeBron/agent.

[nol]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

By the way, as a commenter on a board based on a text sim I love these salary cap tweaks, but it's unbelievable that the two sides can't agree on a cap smoothing plan. If you think this offseason and next are crazy, just wait until the years when the cap is stagnant or actually drops.

Because the time value of money is greater when you get it all up front. The owners receive that benefit, so the players should as well.

[RainMaker]

It's going to be weird because the cap will actually go down in 2018-19.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

You might be right about them flipping him for future assets. I don't think you are, but I wouldn't be shocked, and if that happens you'll have a pretty good argument that it's a ponzi scheme. However, there is zero chance that Noel plays out that QO if Philly offers the max, and I think you're off on when the cap goes up. By my math Noel will be an RFA when it's at ~$90m, and potentially a UFA when it's at ~$110m, but that also means that Philly has even less of a reason to lowball him.

For most teams, I agree. But Hinkie has been very hesitant to make any kind of long term commitment to young players (MCW, McDaniels) and there will be teams with tons of money to spend. He's going to have to give Noel a max RFA deal to have a chance at keeping him, so we'll see how willing he is.

By the way, as a commenter on a board based on a text sim I love these salary cap tweaks, but it's unbelievable that the two sides can't agree on a cap smoothing plan. If you think this offseason and next are crazy, just wait until the years when the cap is stagnant or actually drops.

I agree. I'm shocked there wasn't more traction behind the smoothing idea. It seemed to make sense for all sides and keep the integrity of the league in tact. It's going to be the wild west in FA in two seasons.

[murrayyyyy]

Lawson to Houston. Is the southwest now the sec west?

[Groundhog]

Didn't expect Houston to be the ones to bite, but that's certainly an interesting deal...

[nol]

Better than the Rondo trade, but I wouldn't count on this being too earth-shattering since Beverly is a better fit with Harden.

[stevew]

So supposedly all of the Mavericks top 3 point guards were born on the exact same day. That's kinda freaky.

[stevew]

Lawson was essentially acquired for nothing. Good job to the other teams for allowing Houston to win.

[Arles]

I don't know, I think the Nuggets got the best deal they could given Lawson's legal issues. They got a protected first (2016 if Houston makes the playoffs) and about $8.3 mil in cap relief if they drop the non-guaranteed contracts Houston sent. I also think the deal is solid for Houston as Lawson can be a nice piece for them. But, they did lose a 1st and a bunch of non-guaranteed contracts (which has an opportunity cost).

Overall, I think it was a pretty fair deal and both teams did about as well as could be expected.

[murrayyyyy]

Reports are Embiid broke the same bone again... not good.

Report: Sixers' Joel Embiid rebroke navicular bone in his right foot - CBSSports.com

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Arles

I don't know, I think the Nuggets got the best deal they could given Lawson's legal issues. They got a protected first (2016 if Houston makes the playoffs) and about $8.3 mil in cap relief if they drop the non-guaranteed contracts Houston sent. I also think the deal is solid for Houston as Lawson can be a nice piece for them. But, they did lose a 1st and a bunch of non-guaranteed contracts (which has an opportunity cost).

Overall, I think it was a pretty fair deal and both teams did about as well as could be expected.

On the court, it's very much a win for Houston. They essentially got a very strong PG (if not top 10ish, I can see Top 15) for a pick which won't be anywhere near the lottery and a bunch of nobodies.

[Arles]

Agreed. The only argument against it is if their non-guaranteed deals + 2016 first could have gotten a player that's a better fit. To be honest, I don't see that deal out there so I think Houston did well.

I also think Denver did quite well given the PR hit Lawson took after his latest issue. I don't think many people thought they could get a first and no bad contracts back for him. So, kudos to Denver as well.

[bhlloy]

So I'm not sure how big a deal a summer league championship really is, but I have to admit I'm impressed with Becky Hammon winning the entire thing with Kyle Anderson + parts. The Suns team they beat tonight had 4 first rounders in their starting lineup.

[nol]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

So I'm not sure how big a deal a summer league championship really is, but I have to admit I'm impressed with Becky Hammon winning the entire thing with Kyle Anderson + parts. The Suns team they beat tonight had 4 first rounders in their starting lineup.

Pretty much everybody in the summer league is parts, but Becky Hammon is definitely a legit coach.

[bhlloy]

I agree in general, but Len and Warren hardly fit that description, and Booker isn't chopped liver either

[nol]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I agree in general, but Len and Warren hardly fit that description, and Booker isn't chopped liver either

TJ Warren definitely falls in the same category of Kyle Anderson where I enjoy watching them play against inferior competition but wonder about how they'll do against actual NBA players. 2nd-year players who were 1st-round draft picks should be dominating in the summer league (after all, the best of them don't even play in it). For the Spurs, Jonathan Simmons was an unknown person I watched who definitely looked like an NBA player, so it wasn't like it was a Kyle Anderson one-man show.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by nol

Because the time value of money is greater when you get it all up front. The owners receive that benefit, so the players should as well.

I'm familiar with the concept of time-value of money, and I assume the hordes of lawyers/accountants each side employs are as well. They should've been able to take the EV of the contract payouts and come up with staggered increases instead of a plan where it shoots up unprecedentedly then stagnates/actually drops a year later.