2018 NBA offseason thread

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,700
Saint Paul, MN
Do players like Marcus Smart ever get paid? There aren't many/any comparable players.
Unless they are 7 foot tall versions of Smart, then no, I can't think of any comparable players that got paid at all. Tony Allen and Bruce Bowen are the two that come to my mind as far as comps. I am sure there are others, but those guys stick out to me. Bowen's highest salary was 4.1, Allen 5.5
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
Unless they are 7 foot tall versions of Smart, then no, I can't think of any comparable players that got paid at all. Tony Allen and Bruce Bowen are the two that come to my mind as far as comps. I am sure there are others, but those guys stick out to me. Bowen's highest salary was 4.1, Allen 5.5
Andre Roberson got 3/30 a year ago.

That's a decent payday for a similar style player.

Tony Snell isn't quite as close a comp because he's become a much better shooter, but in the same ballpark value-wise I'd say, and he grabbed 4/46 last summer.

A few defense first types have gotten paid recently, MKG got 4/52, Solomon Hill got 4/48. Those guys are forwards as opposed to Smart as a guard, but they didn't get paid for their offense.
 
Last edited:

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
wonder how Shumpert feels about paying for Happy's country club bills?

Is David Nwaba insurance if Smart signs elsewhere?
I liked what I saw from the Cal-Poly grad, he could keep Jaylan company.
I'm hoping Nwaba is still available should Marcus receive an offer sheet. He's the ideal defensive energy Marcus replacement without the erratic 3-point shooting. Love him on this team on the cheap......I'm not even sure he's a downgrade for the role he'd be asked to play. If so its minimal.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,996
Andre Roberson got 3/30 a year ago.

That's a decent payday for a similar style player.

Tony Snell isn't quite as close a comp because he's become a much better shooter, but in the same ballpark value-wise I'd say, and he grabbed 4/46 last summer.

A few defense first types have gotten paid recently, MKG got 4/52, Solomon Hill got 4/48. Those guys are forwards as opposed to Smart as a guard, but they didn't get paid for their offense.
I hadn't thought of Roberson; he's an almost perfect comp imo. Definitely makes me think Marcus on more than 12M annually would be tough to move.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
Yeah, I think Roberson certainly makes the case for a $10 mil plus contract, if only because he's a materially worse offensive player---essentially Smart without either the passing/penetration or post-up skills. Arguably he's an even better defender, though I don't know that I'd personally make that case.

Utlimately this is one of those cases where you are what someone will pay you---Smart may or may not have a team willing to pay him what comps suggest he is 'worth' in the abstract. Especially not this offseason, it appears.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Yeah, I think Roberson certainly makes the case for a $10 mil plus contract, if only because he's a materially worse offensive player---essentially Smart without either the passing/penetration or post-up skills. Arguably he's an even better defender, though I don't know that I'd personally make that case.

Utlimately this is one of those cases where you are what someone will pay you---Smart may or may not have a team willing to pay him what comps suggest he is 'worth' in the abstract. Especially not this offseason, it appears.

Would people here want Roberson at 3/30? I can see the comparison but I think they are also different players. Roberson is a bit taller and takes considerably less shots than Marcus. Marcus is light years ahead of Roberson in being able to create for others.

I thought of Ricky Rubio but that's not perfect either. Rubio got 4/55. That would probably be Smart's best case scenario. The fact we are struggling to come up with comps who got paid doesn't bode well for Marcus.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
Rubio is a pretty strong comp. Smart isn't quite on Rubio's level as a creator, but adds additional defensive versatility.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
I wouldn't want Roberson at that, but if I represented Smart I'd be making the case that Roberson's contract is a comp which suggests Smart should get more than $10 mil a year. I'd cite Rubio for that as well.

The Celts would likely respond "we didn't offer that deal to Roberson, we don't think it speaks to Smart's value to the Boston Celtics right now" And they'd likely note that Rubio is a different kind of player offensively than Smart, that the Celtics wouldn't offer that deal to Rubio (and in fact that the team who did sign him to the deal ended up salary-dumping him).

Neither is 'truth' here, that's the negotiation...
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,996
I wouldn't want Roberson at that, but if I represented Smart I'd be making the case that Roberson's contract is a comp which suggests Smart should get more than $10 mil a year.

The Celts would likely respond "we didn't offer that deal to Roberson, we don't think it speaks to Smart's value to the Boston Celtics right now"

But that's the negotiation...
I'd probably be fine with Roberson at that (not for the Celtics because they have better options, but in the abstract). Obviously there's the playoff offense concern, but he was able to stay on the floor as a starter for a team that should have made the Finals.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
Right, but that's what is tricky about being an RFA----Smart's value to other teams is not really clear because his ability to move is limited. His value to the Celtics is paramount, and he's arguably worth less to them than he would be someone else. So, while I agree Roberson might be worth that to OKC he likely isn't to the Celtics, which is mostly what matters (especially now, with almost all the FA money gone)
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
7,758
Robertson has value to OKC because they need someone to at least try to defend Durant, Harden, etc, and they don't really need offense from his spot. (they paid him before they got George, IIRC).

Smart's people can make the same argument regarding the Cs and Golden State. I'm guessing they are willing to settle for the $10m a year x three or four years, but the Cs would rather pay him the QO and avoid starting the tax clock this season. Assuming Smart's value this year and next is $10m a season, one year at the QO and three more at $11.2m still gets him to 4/$40, just with bruised feelings. There's always the danger of losing Smart next summer for no compensation, but they were willing to do that last summer with a relatively high draft pick, in KO.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
I'm guessing they are willing to settle for the $10m a year x three or four years, but the Cs would rather pay him the QO and avoid starting the tax clock this season.
It’s not that hard to avoid starting the clock this year.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,125
New York, NY
Robertson has value to OKC because they need someone to at least try to defend Durant, Harden, etc, and they don't really need offense from his spot. (they paid him before they got George, IIRC).

Smart's people can make the same argument regarding the Cs and Golden State. I'm guessing they are willing to settle for the $10m a year x three or four years, but the Cs would rather pay him the QO and avoid starting the tax clock this season. Assuming Smart's value this year and next is $10m a season, one year at the QO and three more at $11.2m still gets him to 4/$40, just with bruised feelings. There's always the danger of losing Smart next summer for no compensation, but they were willing to do that last summer with a relatively high draft pick, in KO.
They sacrificed Olynyk to free up cap space to sign Hayward. That's not "compensation" but it's also not nothing. Smart only costs money. It's not a comparable circumstance.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
Right and that is why I feel Ainge will manage it accordingly to not start the clock until then.
So then we’re back to my original point that there’s plenty of room to re-sign Smart without breaking the tax barrier next year.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
So then we’re back to my original point that there’s plenty of room to re-sign Smart without breaking the tax barrier next year.
Yes and No because his salary WILL affect it in Years 2, 3 and 4 with the latter two the most important in delaying the clock. Signing Smart to a 4-year deal was never going to affect THIS seasons tax as we could simply move Morris.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
They sacrificed Olynyk to free up cap space to sign Hayward. That's not "compensation" but it's also not nothing. Smart only costs money. It's not a comparable circumstance.
No it absolutely isn't only costing money. Kyrie, Brown and Tatum have extensions due within Smart's hypothetical 4-year deal. We know Wyc is willing to pay the luxury tax but unless he's willing to also pay the repeated tax than Smart's contract will hamper those future signings. It isn't only about this year.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
Yes and No because his salary WILL affect it in Years 2, 3 and 4 with the latter two the most important in delaying the clock. Signing Smart to a 4-year deal was never going to affect THIS seasons tax as we could simply move Morris.
What do the ensuing seasons have to do with it? Smart won’t be that hard to move in the summer of ‘19 once Irving re-signs.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
What do the ensuing seasons have to do with it? Smart won’t be that hard to move in the summer of ‘19 once Irving re-signs.
How do we know? Barring injuries to our starters his minutes will go down this year, he's always an injury risk and you're assuming a team with cap space will absorb the remaining 3/$36m (or so) when those same teams won't offer him that now?

Why do this when you can STILL have him this year on the QO and evaluate following the season? If someone offers him a huge deal you sign Nwaba for a fraction of the cost to play the same role.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
The reason for signing him to a slightly over MLE deal is in a worst case scenario where Irving leaves you have Smart and Rozier behind to cover. If Irving re-signs then they move both Smart and Rozier and replace them with new draftees and scrap heap guys.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
The reason for signing him to a slightly over MLE deal is in a worst case scenario where Irving leaves you have Smart and Rozier behind to cover. If Irving re-signs then they move both Smart and Rozier and replace them with new draftees and scrap heap guys.
Before even debating the value of this contract is there any evidence to suggest that Smart has ever considered this size of a deal?
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
701
Maybe. Maybe not. We don't have any evidence to suggest that Denver engaged at all with Atlanta knowing that his buddy had the necessary tools to meet his objective.

The Plumlee contract can't be used to judge Denvers offseason. They saved $91m in salary and tax for the cost of a mid-first rounder. That's a pretty good return.
For Kroenke's wallet sure, but not the actual basketball team. This wasn't moving salary to open space in this year or future years. This was purely about an owner not being willing to pay a modest tax bill for one year (after the Chandler trade, they would have been around 10M over the tax line this year and 11M under next year)

Denver is capped out next year, with a young core that is supposed to coming into its own. A mid-first should be especially valuable. Moreover, its not like moving 20M in expiring dead money for a protected first is some coup. It is no better than the going rate. Last year, Toronto got off 30M that was not expiring for a first.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,125
New York, NY
No it absolutely isn't only costing money. Kyrie, Brown and Tatum have extensions due within Smart's hypothetical 4-year deal. We know Wyc is willing to pay the luxury tax but unless he's willing to also pay the repeated tax than Smart's contract will hamper those future signings. It isn't only about this year.
That it may cost a lot of money in the future is not inconsistent with my statement.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,111
Santa Monica
The reason for signing him to a slightly over MLE deal is in a worst case scenario where Irving leaves you have Smart and Rozier behind to cover. If Irving re-signs then they move both Smart and Rozier and replace them with new draftees and scrap heap guys.
Moving Marcus Smart next season may not be so easy on a 3yr contract. While many of us think Marcus on 4yrs @ $48M is cheap the rest of league doesn't. Danny is wisely being patient and seeing how this plays out. Its a game of musical chairs and the music/money is coming to an end.

For Kroenke's wallet sure, but not the actual basketball team. This wasn't moving salary to open space in this year or future years. This was purely about an owner not being willing to pay a modest tax bill for one year (after the Chandler trade, they would have been around 10M over the tax line this year and 11M under next year)
Denver is capped out next year, with a young core that is supposed to coming into its own. A mid-first should be especially valuable. Moreover, its not like moving 20M in expiring dead money for a protected first is some coup. It is no better than the going rate. Last year, Toronto got off 30M that was not expiring for a first.
Denver stapled a 2nd rounder to Chandler. They could buy a high 2nd rounder next season for around $3-4M, right? Chandler is an older, less effective MaMo. People around here are willing to unload MaMo and his $6M contract to sign Smart. Chandler had no role on the 2018-19 Nuggets.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
Moving Marcus Smart next season may not be so easy on a 3yr contract. While many of us think Marcus on 4yrs @ $48M is cheap the rest of league doesn't. Danny is wisely being patient and seeing how this plays out. Its a game of musical chairs and the music/money is coming to an end.
I think everyone expects a three year deal with an opt out at this point. As for the rest of the league, Smart is a restricted free agent, so the information we have is that the few teams with cap space didn’t bother making a market rate offer on a sixth man because they suspected that it would be matched. And it likely would be.

Denver stapled a 2nd rounder to Chandler. They could buy a high 2nd rounder next season for around $3-4M, right? Chandler is an older, less effective MaMo. People around here are willing to unload MaMo and his $6M contract to sign Smart. Chandler had no role on the 2018-19 Nuggets.
The difference between the two situations is that Morris has actual value to western conference teams whereas Wilson Chandler has declined precipitously since returning from his last injury, and was not exactly an analytical darling before that. Morris at least provides tough F defense in the switchy era. So, yes, the Nuggets had to pay to move a defensive negative that no longer brings much offensively that makes more than twice Morris’ salary.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
So you're thinking they re-sign Kyrie at the max and then get Horford to take something like 4 years at 65-85, depending on his amenability?
I feel this is reasonable for all sides. I've always felt Horford's game would age well and if Kyrie shows he isn't made of glass this would seem to be the way to go following Horford's opt-out following this season.

I think everyone expects a three year deal with an opt out at this point.
Not everyone. ;)
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
Well you were so on the mark with your prediction of Smart getting a giant offer that Boston would never match that I see no reason to be skeptical of this forecast.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Well you were so on the mark with your prediction of Smart getting a giant offer that Boston would never match that I see no reason to be skeptical of this forecast.
That isn't exactly the correct context of my point. Either Smart gets an offer the Celtics won't match or he gets none and plays for the QO. It was always either/or to me.
 

boca

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
508


Woj and Haynes saying Kawhi to Toronto for DeRozan and picks.



But Haynes also saying Kawhi doesn't want to play in Toronto :popcorn:
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608

Per Mitch Lawrence Oklahoma City and Atlanta in trade talks, with Thunder targeting Dennis Schroder and Mike Muscala, per sources. Carmelo Anthony would go to Atlanta, with Hawks doing buyout. Atl looking to add asset to make Melo’s buyout a wash. Getting rid of Schroder is No. 1 priority.

That shaves a ton of salary for OKC over just buying Carmelo out. They could still stretch Schroder and/or Muscala if they wanted for additional savings.
 
Last edited:

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,694
Why not? He'd be an unhappy back up, for sure, but ...how disruptive could he be? And he'd be an above average back-up, not that being Russ' back up gets you many minutes.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,083
Why not? He'd be an unhappy back up, for sure, but ...how disruptive could he be? And he'd be an above average back-up, not that being Russ' back up gets you many minutes.
You're ok with paying $15.5M / season for the next 3 years for a backup PG with behavioral issues, legal problems, etc.? Seems like an awful use of cap space unless you're getting a legit asset back from Atlanta.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,847
NYC
OKC already re-signed Raymond Felton, too. Maybe they could live with the redundancy for a year, but I could also see Russ, Felton and co. tiring quickly of Schroder's shenanigans.
 

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,694
You're ok with paying $15.5M / season for the next 3 years for a backup PG with behavioral issues, legal problems, etc.? Seems like an awful use of cap space unless you're getting a legit asset back from Atlanta.
well, no...I'm talking in a vacuum -- definitely not seeing it's a good value contract, obviously not. But if the salary is a sunk cost, then leaving that value issue aside I imagine he'd be a reasonable back-up...better than Felton, for example.

That said, I'd probably just amnesty him given the other baggage and the redundancy.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
41,946


Woj and Haynes saying Kawhi to Toronto for DeRozan and picks.



But Haynes also saying Kawhi doesn't want to play in Toronto :popcorn:
So, Toronto goes out and finally gets the guy who can stop/slow down Lebron, but it's a couple weeks after Lebron heads to the Western Conference? GJGE Toronto.

On top of that, Melo doesn't want to play in Toronto, so he's a one year rental at best. Giving up 3 years of DeRozan doesn't seem like a bright move for a guy that doesn't want to play for you.

If people around here are still interested in Kawhi, I hope their tune changes when he pulls the same shit he pulled last year, and claims he's injured or finds another way to not bother showing up for his job. Just send the guy to MIami or the Clippers or some other fun city with a shitty team so he can finish his career in basketball irrelevanceland. I couldn't want a guy less than I want Kawhi on the C's.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
He’s required to show up for a physical if he wants to be paid. So if he pulls the same old shit, he’s living on his savings.
 

Big John

New Member
Dec 9, 2016
2,086
Another back surgery for Michael Porter Jr. His camp is calling it a "breakthrough" in resolving his herniated disc issue.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
You're ok with paying $15.5M / season for the next 3 years for a backup PG with behavioral issues, legal problems, etc.? Seems like an awful use of cap space unless you're getting a legit asset back from Atlanta.
I think it's a talent question. OKC doesn't have enough horses to be in the top tier in the west, so you take a shot on Schroeder with the cost being almost zero (and really, positive). I don't like his game a ton and never have, but there's skills there and if he's a third guard and primary scorer when Westbrook is sitting it might work.

Think of it this way. If you're capped out and your choices are:

1) Carmelo
2) Buy out Carmelo and nothing in return
3) Schroeder

Isn't 3) a no-brainer gamble to take?
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,083
I think it's a talent question. OKC doesn't have enough horses to be in the top tier in the west, so you take a shot on Schroeder with the cost being almost zero (and really, positive). I don't like his game a ton and never have, but there's skills there and if he's a third guard and primary scorer when Westbrook is sitting it might work.

Think of it this way. If you're capped out and your choices are:

1) Carmelo
2) Buy out Carmelo and nothing in return
3) Schroeder

Isn't 3) a no-brainer gamble to take?
Westbrook sits like 12-15 mpg though. You’re not getting much value at all unless you think he can play with Westbrook at the same time, which I don’t. I could see the insurance angle since he’s good enough to hold the fort Rozier-style should Westbrook go down for a stretch. I’ll reserve judgment until I see what else comes back. If you can get a protected pick down the road, it would make it a better proposition for me.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
I get it's not a great fit, but really look at the choices---improving those 12-15 minutes a game is still more helpful than Carmelo (who is likely a negative at this point). And more than doing nothing.

Do you really disagree with either of those?

I think you're kidding yourself about there being a better option here---Carmelo has had a 'for sale---deeply discounted' sign hanging on him since he opted in and there's clearly not a lot out there for him (for good reason)
 
Last edited:

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,083
Again, look at the choices---improving those 12-15 minutes a game is still more helpful than Carmelo (who is likley a negative at this point). And more than doing nothing.

Do you really disagree with either of those?
How familiar are you with Schroeder’s legal troubles and reputation? He has a pending assault case that still isn’t resolved and is universally HATED by his teammates.

Sure, from a pure talent standpoint, you can make that argument but team chemistry matters and he has a real chance of being a distraction.

He’s a terrible 3 point shooter and his defense has gotten worse. I wouldn’t touch this kid with a 10 foot pole. Terrible attitude.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
How familiar are you with Schroeder’s legal troubles and reputation? He has a pending assault case that still isn’t resolved and is universally HATED by his teammates.

Sure, from a pure talent standpoint, you can make that argument but team chemistry matters and he has a real chance of being a distraction.

He’s a terrible 3 point shooter and his defense has gotten worse. I wouldn’t touch this kid with a 10 foot pole. Terrible attitude.
Sure (and obviously I'm well aware of all the dynamics here). But you can always cut him and you're still better off cap/tax wise doing so than having to deal with Carmelo's deal this year. That's why I think there's more to this than the quick brush you seem to have given it.

And like I said before, I dislike Schroder's game---you can find posts of me criticizing the Hawks clearing the role for him in the first place. OKC doesn't have the choice of 'none of the above' and I get why they might decide to take this gamble vs eating Carmelo's deal. Can you name the alternative you like better?
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608

Oklahoma City has agreed to trade Carmelo Anthony and a protected 2022 first-round pick to Atlanta for point guard Dennis Schroder and Mike Muscala, league sources tell ESPN. Anthony will be waived, and he will join team of his choice. Rockets are frontrunner.

In another tweet Woj says that OKC will save $100MM in salary and luxury tax through the trade and I can't figure out how he's getting to that number. Anyone want to do the math?
 
Last edited: