2017 NBA offseason thread

In my lifetime

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
959
Connecticut
I think the problem isn't a ceiling on max salaries but more the salary cap to begin with. For instance It's ridiculous that Carmelo Anthony is almost impossible to move because of how his salary fits into the cap, when it's in his best interest and both teams' best interest for him to go elsewhere. I'd much prefer a MLB-type salary structure, no salary cap but big penalties if you go over a number.
Actually, the problem would be exacerbated if max salaries were kept and there was no salary cap. There would just be more mediocre players getting the max and no salary difference in being the best player in the league vs. the 100th best player. So in that case, no reason why any of the top 100 or so, just went to "play with their friends", teamed up to win a title or went to the location that offered the most exposure for them. You would take the same salary hit by signing the #1, 2, 3 and 4 players as the #96, 97, 98 and 99 players. And yes of course, it might not be 100 players who got the max, but you get the general point.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,737
Oh yeah, to be clear, there would be no max salaries in my plan, basically the same rules as MLB has now.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I think Hagios is right. So far we've seen guys turning down ~10% of their annual salary to pick their own destination. We haven't seen much in the way of guys taking 50% paycuts on the other hand. It's possible that the amount of money that star players are getting in the NBA will change that dynamic, and prime-age stars really will turn down $60M to play for $30M somewhere else, just cause it's "generational wealth" either way, but I don't think we can assume that either.
It would ruin super teams and allow teams without superstars to compete if they have above average starters at all 5 positions. If you asked me before this summer if the max had any chance of going away, I'd have said no since it benefits the non stars too much. Not really sure that's the case anymore when teams decide to go with benches of Semi, Nader, Theis instead of guys like Jerebko, Crowder and Amir. 2nd round picks stick around longer.

Plus with the NBA playing a more active part in the G league and 2 way contracts, I can see G league players getting more burn in the NBA. Seems like the NBA is going through the shift MLB went through in the early 2000's. They learned that giving the Mike Lansing's of the world contracts is stupid and to use minor league depth.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,472
Somewhere
I don't love it, but the player max works great for the owners. And that is why it will never change.

This is because the salary cap is clearly pushed by competition for elite talent. If you don't have Lebron pushing for Jordan's inflation adjusted 1997 salary (~$65 million in today's dollars) then you're not going to see the cap open up.

The added bonus of the player max is that scrubs love it. Many of them will be left out in the cold but who wouldn't want to luck into a Mozgov contract?
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
The max contract doesn't exist to protect the owners; it's there because it's extremely beneficial to the rank-and-file NBA players. The max contract redistributes money from the elite players to back-end starters and bench guys, most of whom would hardly make more than the minimum in a system with a salary cap and no max. Whether or not that is good for the league's competitive balance is mostly irrelevant; it's going to be there because the Union is going to continue to fight for it.
 

MainerInExile

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2003
4,825
Bay Area
I don't love it, but the player max works great for the owners. And that is why it will never change.

This is because the salary cap is clearly pushed by competition for elite talent. If you don't have Lebron pushing for Jordan's inflation adjusted 1997 salary (~$65 million in today's dollars) then you're not going to see the cap open up.

The added bonus of the player max is that scrubs love it. Many of them will be left out in the cold but who wouldn't want to luck into a Mozgov contract?
I don't understand why owners would love the max. They pay to the salary cap anyway. I think the max is loved only by the middle class of NBA rosters.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
I don't love it, but the player max works great for the owners. And that is why it will never change.
Owners keep between 49% and 51% of basketball-related income regardless. Any savings they get from paying LeBron less than the max means they have to pay the Mozgovs of the world more. It's zero-sum for the owners.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
The max contract doesn't exist to protect the owners; it's there because it's extremely beneficial to the rank-and-file NBA players. The max contract redistributes money from the elite players to back-end starters and bench guys, most of whom would hardly make more than the minimum in a system with a salary cap and no max. Whether or not that is good for the league's competitive balance is mostly irrelevant; it's going to be there because the Union is going to continue to fight for it.
This is simply not true.

The creation of a max salary was fought hard for by the owners and played a major factor if not THE major factor in locking out the players after KG signed a massive contract following his rookie year and Glenn Robinson signed his (at the time) monster deal prior to playing a single NBA game. It has kinda backfired on them a little or at the very least didn't accomplish what they had set out for it to do.......but the Players Union weren't the ones fighting for it, this was 100% the owners insisting upon it that was due to the KG and Robinson contracts throwing the salary structure of unproven young players completely out of whack.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
This is simply not true.

The creation of a max salary was fought hard for by the owners and played a major factor if not THE major factor in locking out the players after KG signed a massive contract following his rookie year and Glenn Robinson signed his (at the time) monster deal prior to playing a single NBA game. It has kinda backfired on them a little or at the very least didn't accomplish what they had set out for it to do.......but the Players Union weren't the ones fighting for it, this was 100% the owners insisting upon it that was due to the KG and Robinson contracts throwing the salary structure of unproven young players completely out of whack.
Yep. It was so small market teams could afford to keep their stars.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
This is simply not true.

The creation of a max salary was fought hard for by the owners and played a major factor if not THE major factor in locking out the players after KG signed a massive contract following his rookie year and Glenn Robinson signed his (at the time) monster deal prior to playing a single NBA game. It has kinda backfired on them a little or at the very least didn't accomplish what they had set out for it to do.......but the Players Union weren't the ones fighting for it, this was 100% the owners insisting upon it that was due to the KG and Robinson contracts throwing the salary structure of unproven young players completely out of whack.
You're not wrong, but whether or not the max contract was the owners' idea is irrelevant to today's discussion. Removing the max contract now would impact the middle class of the NBA and have little to no effect on owners (at least in the short term). It's the law of unintended consequences. Each CBA has wrought new problems created by one side trying to over correct for problems that were created during previous negotiations.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
Nets acquired Allen Crabbe from the Blazers for Andrew Nicholson, who will be stretch waived. Deal could now be consummated because it has been 365 days since the Blazers matched. It will reportedly save Portland close to $50 million in salary and luxury tax payments.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
Nets acquired Allen Crabbe from the Blazers for Andrew Nicholson, who will be stretch waived. Deal could now be consummated because it has been 365 days since the Blazers matched. It will reportedly save Portland close to $50 million in salary and luxury tax payments.
That's incredibly fortunate for Portland. Crabbe shouldn't move the needle much for Tankathon 2018 so I'm ok with this.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,849
NYC
Interesting. I wonder if that clears the runway for a deal involving Melo, Kyrie or both.

I'm probably not objective as a Cal guy, I always felt the Crabbe contract was an unfair scapegoat for Portland's underperformance last season. Dude is 25, 6'-6", reasonably athletic, and put up .602 true shooting last year, including .441 from three (.411 career). Even if all he is is a younger, more athletic Korver, that's probably worth 4/$74M in last summer's crazy market.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
Interesting. I wonder if that clears the runway for a deal involving Melo, Kyrie or both.
There was some speculation on the Blazersedge board that by creating a large trade exception in this deal they could re-work the Melo 3-team trade scenarios without Meyers Leonard going back to NY. I'm not entirely sure how that works, but that is out there so you may be on to something.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
Kyrie has unfollowed Lebron on Instagram.

This is the topic on NBA Radio.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,472
Somewhere
Owners keep between 49% and 51% of basketball-related income regardless. Any savings they get from paying LeBron less than the max means they have to pay the Mozgovs of the world more. It's zero-sum for the owners.
No kidding. Twenty years ago, the player share was 57%. That share is determined at the same time as the player maxes (and other salary controls). With a player max the owners can keep the midlevel guys (i.e. the rank and file among the players) happy while reducing their total expenses. It's a no brainer for them. They had a lockout to implement this policy, among others.
 

Sox and Rocks

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2013
5,826
Northern Colorado
Lowe also proposed a Jamal Murray/Gary Harris/Wilson Chandler and a 1st. Out of the proposed offers. Out of the Lowe proposals, I think that's the best fit for the Cavs.
Of course that deal is the best fit for the Cavs because they would be robbing the Nuggets. No way Denver does that. They might (probably should) offer one of Murray/Harris with a pic and a lesser piece(s), but they would be dumb to offer both Harris and Murray for Irving. Doing so would be a lateral move, at best, for now, and they would lose the longterm upside of both younger players.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,472
Somewhere
Of course that deal is the best fit for the Cavs because they would be robbing the Nuggets. No way Denver does that. They might (probably should) offer one of Murray/Harris with a pic and a lesser piece(s), but they would be dumb to offer both Harris and Murray for Irving. Doing so would be a lateral move, at best, for now, and they would lose the longterm upside of both younger players.
Harris has one year remaining on his deal. How much longterm upside is there?
 

Sox and Rocks

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2013
5,826
Northern Colorado
Harris has one year remaining on his deal. How much longterm upside is there?
He will be restricted next year, and he's only 22 years old and improving every year. That combination constitutes upside.

Do you think Harris and Murray, plus Chandler and other pieces and/or pics for Irving is fair value for both sides?
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
Gary Harris is about to enter Victor Oladipo zone, which is when an intriguing young player suddenly becomes an overpriced role player. Is Gary Harris a nice player? Yes. Is he a nice player at $25 million a year? Ehh...

Is Murray/Harris/Chandler fair from Denver's perspective? Maybe or maybe not, but take one piece out and Cleveland's not biting. Irving/Millsap/Jokic is an intriguing core for a team with playoff aspirations.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
He will be restricted next year, and he's only 22 years old and improving every year. That combination constitutes upside.

Do you think Harris and Murray, plus Chandler and other pieces and/or pics for Irving is fair value for both sides?
Harris is good and should improve but he doesn't really create his own shot. He's ultimately a really good 3 and D player. Murray has the chance to be much more but isn't the player Harris is yet. I agree it would be really foolish to include both of them. Chandler would be to make contracts work but the Nuggets would be without a SF if they trade Chandler. It would also put Barton in the starting lineup at SG so the option to play him at SF isn't there. It also seriously depletes the bench. I don't see it.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
I think a much more plausible scenario is either Murray or Harris going to Cleveland and Denver supplying picks and salary ballast to New York to facilitate a Melo to Cleveland trade.

EDIT: Clarity that Melo goes to Cleveland.
 
Last edited:

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
Looks like Brandon Knight tore his ACL in a pro-am game. When you try to screw Danny over, the karma train comes back to find you. Not a huge loss on the court but they couldn't give him away when healthy. Now that task is basically impossible.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
That's incredibly fortunate for Portland. Crabbe shouldn't move the needle much for Tankathon 2018 so I'm ok with this.
Crabbe can put the ball in the basket at a really good rate. I'm becoming more and more concerned with these productive veteran pieces who can score the ball. When they had a healthy Lin early in the season this team scored enough to win NBA games....now they get Lin back, add Crabbe who can score in bunches, add Carroll who can do a little of everything, add Russell who once a week can carry your offense, and replace Lopez with a comparable big in Mozgov.

I'm banking solely on this team being a cluster due to chemistry issues with each man out for themselves along with youngs like Whitehead and LeVert looking for theirs.......but if they don't have these issues this doesn't have to be a Bottom-3 NBA team.


On the Carmelo thing.......I can't imagine him waiving his NTC to be 3000 miles away from his son in Portland, Oregon to maybe win 40 games. If he's going to relocate it figures to be to a team with a purpose like Houston or Cleveland.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
Looks like Brandon Knight tore his ACL in a pro-am game. When you try to screw Danny over, the karma train comes back to find you. Not a huge loss on the court but they couldn't give him away when healthy. Now that task is basically impossible.
Knight was acquired in 3-team deal that also included the Lakers 2018 pick that we now have.

After acquiring Knight the Suns dealt IT4 to Boston.

Thanks Brandon.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,464
He will be restricted next year, and he's only 22 years old and improving every year. That combination constitutes upside.

Do you think Harris and Murray, plus Chandler and other pieces and/or pics for Irving is fair value for both sides?
Yes.
Kyrie is by far the best player in that deal and is very likely to continue to be so through everyone involved's next contract.

Stars are the most valuable commodity in the NBA, and because of short rotation and usage issues the top and 2nd tier of stars are worth more than 2 or 3 players who seem to sum up to more production.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
Crabbe can put the ball in the basket at a really good rate. I'm becoming more and more concerned with these productive veteran pieces who can score the ball. When they had a healthy Lin early in the season this team scored enough to win NBA games....now they get Lin back, add Crabbe who can score in bunches, add Carroll who can do a little of everything, add Russell who once a week can carry your offense, and replace Lopez with a comparable big in Mozgov.

I'm banking solely on this team being a cluster due to chemistry issues with each man out for themselves along with youngs like Whitehead and LeVert looking for theirs.......but if they don't have these issues this doesn't have to be a Bottom-3 NBA team.


On the Carmelo thing.......I can't imagine him waiving his NTC to be 3000 miles away from his son in Portland, Oregon to maybe win 40 games. If he's going to relocate it figures to be to a team with a purpose like Houston or Cleveland.
I was following right along until you said replace Lopez with a comparable big in Mozgov. Brook was far and away the best player on the team and as a stretch big he opened up the floor for their other players. Mozgov is barely playable in his current state. That's a massive downgrade and one which won't be easily covered up by adding a couple 3 and D wings.
 

Sox and Rocks

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2013
5,826
Northern Colorado
Harris is good and should improve but he doesn't really create his own shot. He's ultimately a really good 3 and D player. Murray has the chance to be much more but isn't the player Harris is yet. I agree it would be really foolish to include both of them. Chandler would be to make contracts work but the Nuggets would be without a SF if they trade Chandler. It would also put Barton in the starting lineup at SG so the option to play him at SF isn't there. It also seriously depletes the bench. I don't see it.
In this scenario, both Denver and Cleveland have to decide if they value Murray's potential upside greater than Harris' current production and upside. Harris is certainly the more balanced and better player now, and he fits both teams better (for example, Murray is essentially a poor/young man's Irving with a similar game, so is somewhat redundant if staying), but Harris is about to be expensive, and his ceiling isn't what Murray's is.

The Nuggets have other pieces than Chandler they could include to match salary, like Faried because, you're right, they really can't afford to give up Chandler from a positional perspective.

Harris or Murray (not both), Faried, pick(s), and perhaps one or two of the other young Nuggets who are a notch below Murray and Faried (Mudiay, Hernangomez Lyndon, Lyles) is the most I would want them to give up and seems fair, but I am a Nuggets fanboy so I could be overvaluing the current players.
 

Sox and Rocks

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2013
5,826
Northern Colorado
One other thing to keep in mind is that any trade won't just be hypothetical value, but also what the market bears. It seems Inevitable that Irving will be traded, so the Nuggets (or any other team) simply have to match the other offers rather than giving Cleveland all it wants. In other words, teams don't have to entice Cleveland to give up Irving by offering a ton, they simply have to offer more than others.
 
Last edited:

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,464
One other thing to keep in mind is that any trade won't just be hypothetical value, but also what the market bears. It seems Inevitable that Irving will be traded, so the Nuggets (or any other team) simply have to match the other offers rather than giving Cleveland all it wants. In other words, teams don't have to entice Cleveland to give up Irving by offering a ton, they simply have to offer more than others.
Flip side of that is Kyrie is the last available star standing, he's maybe not even at his prime yet, and you get a minimum of 2 seasons from him. That really opens up the number of teams making offers, especially teams who for market reasons might not be involved on guys like George who are 1 year rentals. I'd expect CLE to get a nice deal just based on the number of interested teams.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
One other thing to keep in mind is that any trade won't just be hypothetical value, but also what the market bears. It seems Inevitable that Irving will be traded, so the Nuggets (or any other team) simply have to match the other offers rather than giving Cleveland all it wants. In other words, teams don't have to entice Cleveland to give up Irving by offering a ton, they simply have to offer more than others.
This isn't necessarily true as there are other factors in play. Cleveland's likely desire to ship Kyrie out of the EC forces the EC teams to offer significantly more than a WC team and that may not even be enough as we saw with how the Bulls negotiated for Butler. There is also the Cavaliers decision to reload with older veterans for another full blown shot with LeBron in tow or to prepare for what may be the inevitable beginning the following season while desiring younger players while focusing on salary flexibility.....the Cavs direction can favor a team with a "lesser" offer but one that is aligned with their objective.

In addition there are going to be multiple suitors so simply matching another offer isn't enough to get a deal closed......if all else in equal they would need to beat an offer from one or more teams. Guys like Kyrie don't come on the market with multiple years of control very often and I'm guessing he is going to fetch a ton for Cleveland.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,295
In this scenario, both Denver and Cleveland have to decide if they value Murray's potential upside greater than Harris' current production and upside. Harris is certainly the more balanced and better player now, and he fits both teams better (for example, Murray is essentially a poor/young man's Irving with a similar game, so is somewhat redundant if staying), but Harris is about to be expensive, and his ceiling isn't what Murray's is.

The Nuggets have other pieces than Chandler they could include to match salary, like Faried because, you're right, they really can't afford to give up Chandler from a positional perspective.

Harris or Murray (not both), Faried, pick(s), and perhaps one or two of the other young Nuggets who are a notch below Murray and Faried (Mudiay, Hernangomez Lyndon, Lyles) is the most I would want them to give up and seems fair, but I am a Nuggets fanboy so I could be overvaluing the current players.

Yeah, I think it's fair to say you are overvaluing the current crop a lot. Murray, Faried, and Lyles doesn't even get you in the conversation.

I think if you take Lowe's offer and swap Faried for Chandler that's a pretty good trade for both teams. As it was pointed out earlier, Chandler is a pretty essential piece for Denver since he's one of their few actual wings. The Nuggets are pretty well equipped to lose both Murray and Harris actually. They have Barton, Malik Beasley, Jameer Nelson, and Mudiay who can pick up rotation minutes. Faried really doesn't have a role on the Nuggets currently.

We also have to remember the Nuggets were dead last in attendance last year and they desperately want to make the playoffs. Kyrie, in terms of popularity, is a legitimate superstar. He immediately helps the attendance issue and a team of Kyrie, Barton, Chandler, Millsap, and Jokic should definitely make the playoffs.
 

Sox and Rocks

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2013
5,826
Northern Colorado
If one of Murray or Harris and 2 of mudiay, Hernangomez, Lyles, Beasley, Lyndon plus a pic isn't enough to get the conversation started, then I'm happy to remain quiet.

I want Irving on the Nuggets, but not enough to give up Murray and Harris plus others. He might make them more competitive, but they're still not close enough to compete with GS, so potentially moving up a few spots in playoff seeding isn't going to make a big difference. I'd rather they remain a fringe contender and develop the youngsters with the hope of taking a bigger leap in several years.

You're right about attendance, though, which scares me since ownership could overpay to improve it. As a fan, I don't care about attendance, only the quality of the team
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,472
Somewhere
If one of Murray or Harris and 2 of mudiay, Hernangomez, Lyles, Beasley, Lyndon plus a pic isn't enough to get the conversation started, then I'm happy to remain quiet.
All of those guys are role players with only Murray having a legitimate shot at reaching Kyrie's talent level -- and it's a long shot that he does. I don't rate Kyrie as highly as some but he's still a legitimate scorer/playmaker and that skillset is still the rarest in the NBA.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,849
NYC
GSW death star now fully operational with signing of JaVale McGee at the vet min.



Take a bow, Bob Myers. How many NBA starting fives would clearly beat the Warriors current benchmob of

Shaun Livingston
Nick Young / Pat McCaw
Andre Iguodala
Omri Casspi / Jordan Bell
JaVale McGee / David West

?
 
Last edited:

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
GSW death star now fully operational with signing of JaVale McGee at the vet min.



Take a bow, Bob Myers. How many NBA starting fives would clearly beat the Warriors current benchmob of

Shaun Livingston
Nick Young / Pat McCaw
Andre Iguodala
Omri Casspi / Jordan Bell
JaVale McGee / David West

?
Umm, if we're talking a 48 minute game, basically all of them.
 

ElUno20

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
6,055
GSW death star now fully operational with signing of JaVale McGee at the vet min.



Take a bow, Bob Myers. How many NBA starting fives would clearly beat the Warriors current benchmob of

Shaun Livingston
Nick Young / Pat McCaw
Andre Iguodala
Omri Casspi / Jordan Bell
JaVale McGee / David West

?
Yeah dude, that is scrub central. Those guys are great role players because they play with 4 top 15 players. But that's a scrub ass squad that would get mopped up and down the court any day of the week.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using SoSH mobile app
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,849
NYC
Umm, if we're talking a 48 minute game, basically all of them.
I dunno, if we're talking about just one season (so ignoring youth/upside), and assuming no major regression from Andre, I'd probably take Livingston-Young-Iguodala-Casspi-West over the starting fives of ATL, BKN, SAC, PHO, LAL and maybe a couple others.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
I dunno, if we're talking about just one season (so ignoring youth/upside), and assuming no major regression from Andre, I'd probably take Livingston-Young-Iguodala-Casspi-West over the starting fives of ATL, BKN, SAC, PHO, LAL and maybe a couple others.
None of those guys except for maybe Young would be able to play 35mpg over the course of the season so you'd have a ton of minutes for fringe NBA guys like McCaw, Bell, etc.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,849
NYC
I guess I'm also assuming last year's Swaggy P — .588 true shooting, .401 from three, best spot-up shooter in the NBA not named Steph Curry, best perimeter defender on the LOLakers according to Luke Walton — is for real, which may be a big assumption.

Also assuming the healthy .580+ ts / .400+ 3fg Casspi from 2014-16 Kings, which may also be optimistic.

Iguodala is of course nobody's "scrub" by any stretch. Dude had the #1 assist-to-turnover ratio in the league last year (ahead of #2 Chris Paul), put up .624 ts, and at his peak was probably the best perimeter defender in the NBA (though I think he's fallen off a bit in that area).

Edit: but agreed with BigSoxFan that most of those guys are almost certainly not capable of handling everyday starter minutes at their current ages.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
Yes a great defensive big man with exceptional work ethic and shot blocking would be useless on any other team.

McCaw will leave and get a nice deal somewhere imo

Both were well flagged as sleepers. As we're Boldin, Evans, brown it's not their fault teams would rather have worse players than actual role players who can stay on the court