Irrational exuberance: The Neemias Queta thread

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,335
Yea there is a huge demand for SPORTS from linear TV & the mega tech companies

The G-League is an untapped gold mine:
1. Get a TV contract
2. Add NBA 2-way contracts
3. Pay the G-League players more which will lead to NCAA/Euro talent wanting to play
4. Start the G League season on Labor Day
5. End the G-league season at the All-Star game (Championship game on Friday night)
6. Experiment with rules in the G-League to increase PACE of play
7. Critically grade refs at the G-League level and promote 5 a year and CUT the 5 worst NBA Refs
8. Aggressively develop officiating technology with an eye on quicker decision-making
9. Use larger college arenas. Kids U-13 free admission
Which do you think breaks out first and/or has the higher upside…G-League or WNBA?

Personally I’m not a fan of either but one is a minor league that nobody cares about while the other could gain significant momentum based off the success of the college game and individual stars entering the league next year.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
21,172
Santa Monica
Which do you think breaks out first and/or has the higher upside…G-League or WNBA?

Personally I’m not a fan of either but one is a minor league that nobody cares about while the other could gain significant momentum based off the success of the college game and individual stars entering the league next year.
I'm not a fan of either and it's all about how you define success.

There has been a million times larger investment in the women's game at the NCAA & WNBA level than the G-League. The WNBA has been a money loser every year for over two decades. I guess Caitlin Clark & 18MM viewers will attempt to change that. BUT I expect billionaire owners to continue to shell out.

The G-League is an undervalued opportunity (monetarily/talent-wise) for the NBA & clever teams IMO.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
32,076
The WNBA has been a money loser every year for over two decades. I guess Caitlin Clark & 18MM viewers will attempt to change that.
Would be interesting if Caitlin Clark / Angel Reese provided the same type of catalyst to the women's game that Bird-Magic did for the men's game.

People don't remember (or don't even know) that pre-Bird-Magic, the NBA had its playoffs being aired on tape-delay on TV. on the East Coast. Things have certainly changed since then. :)
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
21,172
Santa Monica
Would be interesting if Caitlin Clark / Angel Reese provided the same type of catalyst to the women's game that Bird-Magic did for the men's game.

People don't remember (or don't even know) that pre-Bird-Magic, the NBA had its playoffs being aired on tape-delay on TV. on the East Coast. Things have certainly changed since then. :)
Great analogy, that would be very cool if that happened. For the most part, I enjoyed the Iowa/USC Finals. Nice tempo to the game, great shooting, passing... the only part of the game that was tough to watch was the play around the rim.
 

Justthetippett

New Member
Aug 9, 2015
2,870
Would be interesting if Caitlin Clark / Angel Reese provided the same type of catalyst to the women's game that Bird-Magic did for the men's game.

People don't remember (or don't even know) that pre-Bird-Magic, the NBA had its playoffs being aired on tape-delay on TV. on the East Coast. Things have certainly changed since then. :)
There's definitely some momentum here. Between personalities and excellent outside shooting (the stuff around the rim is not going to be what drives the interest), and perhaps the world catching up to the USWNT, basketball could see a big bump.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,335
I'm not a fan of either and it's all about how you define success.

There has been a million times larger investment in the women's game at the NCAA & WNBA level than the G-League. The WNBA has been a money loser every year for over two decades. I guess Caitlin Clark & 18MM viewers will attempt to change that. BUT I expect billionaire owners to continue to shell out.

The G-League is an undervalued opportunity (monetarily/talent-wise) for the NBA & clever teams IMO.
I think the opposite. When has a minor league anything been a cash cow on a national level?


Would be interesting if Caitlin Clark / Angel Reese provided the same type of catalyst to the women's game that Bird-Magic did for the men's game.

People don't remember (or don't even know) that pre-Bird-Magic, the NBA had its playoffs being aired on tape-delay on TV. on the East Coast. Things have certainly changed since then. :)
This is what I’m expecting to happen. There is finally a significant buzz among casual fans. This had never been the case prior….not with Griner, not with Taurasi, not with Sue Bird. This is different.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
21,172
Santa Monica
I think the opposite. When has a minor league anything been a cash cow on a national level?
It wouldn't be easy. BUT start it up 2 months ahead of the NBA season & end it at All-Star weekend. Pay the players more (steal all the best 18-year-olds and Euro players). Take all the G-League teams to different cities during the year (Vegas, Seattle, Kansas City, San Diego)

NBA teams are going for 4-5B now, the development process for players is pretty archaic.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
23,371
Pittsburgh, PA
NBA teams are going for 4-5B now, the development process for players is pretty archaic.
Ok, but at the same time, what % of non garbage minutes are played by players who were drafted, and never were sent down to the G for more than a cup of coffee? It's gotta be well over 80%, maybe even 90%. The player development engine, such as it is, isn't overlooking a whole lot of non-draftees. Sure, you can name some, but not many impact players, right? Even your Derrick Whites were still a late first rounder. The second round catches plenty of players who may have been low percentage to have an NBA career, but who panned out, from Jokic and IT4 and Tony Parker on down. If there were a third or fourth round, the players who mostly go to the G league, how many NBA players would really be found there?

Now, that's not a reason not to have a second-division league of good pros who play hard and entertain smaller crowds. They'll never make a fortune as players, but the market is there for them, especially in colder places. But I'm not sure that the player-development angle, as a reason to invest in it, really moves the needle for NBA owners.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
21,172
Santa Monica
Ok, but at the same time, what % of non garbage minutes are played by players who were drafted, and never were sent down to the G for more than a cup of coffee? It's gotta be well over 80%, maybe even 90%. The player development engine, such as it is, isn't overlooking a whole lot of non-draftees. Sure, you can name some, but not many impact players, right? Even your Derrick Whites were still a late first rounder. The second round catches plenty of players who may have been low percentage to have an NBA career, but who panned out, from Jokic and IT4 and Tony Parker on down. If there were a third or fourth round, the players who mostly go to the G league, how many NBA players would really be found there?

Now, that's not a reason not to have a second-division league of good pros who play hard and entertain smaller crowds. They'll never make a fortune as players, but the market is there for them, especially in colder places. But I'm not sure that the player-development angle, as a reason to invest in it, really moves the needle for NBA owners.
If your team is worth $5B it's worth tossing in ~ $5MM/yr in G-League player salaries. IMO

Developing min players (Hauser, Kornet, now Queta) for multiple years helps when you're paying tax bills. Frankly, the C's/Danny were late to the game & unsurprisingly Brad has been really good at it.

After watching Toronto develop FVV & Siakam in the G-League I've been sold on it
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
45,993
Melrose, MA
Ok, but at the same time, what % of non garbage minutes are played by players who were drafted, and never were sent down to the G for more than a cup of coffee? It's gotta be well over 80%, maybe even 90%. The player development engine, such as it is, isn't overlooking a whole lot of non-draftees. Sure, you can name some, but not many impact players, right? Even your Derrick Whites were still a late first rounder. The second round catches plenty of players who may have been low percentage to have an NBA career, but who panned out, from Jokic and IT4 and Tony Parker on down. If there were a third or fourth round, the players who mostly go to the G league, how many NBA players would really be found there?

Now, that's not a reason not to have a second-division league of good pros who play hard and entertain smaller crowds. They'll never make a fortune as players, but the market is there for them, especially in colder places. But I'm not sure that the player-development angle, as a reason to invest in it, really moves the needle for NBA owners.
Maybe what there should be is expansion.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,335
Maybe what there should be is expansion.
The other owners sure would want some of each teams $2.5B franchise fee.

It wouldn't be easy. BUT start it up 2 months ahead of the NBA season & end it at All-Star weekend. Pay the players more (steal all the best 18-year-olds and Euro players). Take all the G-League teams to different cities during the year (Vegas, Seattle, Kansas City, San Diego)

NBA teams are going for 4-5B now, the development process for players is pretty archaic.
It’s such a bad product though. Think college basketball without all the best players. I don’t see where the demand would be…..whereas we saw this past season and last week what the demand is for Caitlin.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,930
Celtics declined his option. This likely means they have an agreement on a multi year extension

A little bit surprising, since he hardly showed much to really warrant multiple years, in my opinion. Tillman or Kornet, yes, but Queta barely saw the floor.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
10,397
San Francisco
Celtics declined his option. This likely means they have an agreement on a multi year extension

A little bit surprising, since he hardly showed much to really warrant multiple years, in my opinion. Tillman or Kornet, yes, but Queta barely saw the floor.
I thought he had some real flashes in the regular season. He's very athletic and big.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,930
I changed my mind, my guess is they don’t have an agreement in place and they are just going to evaluate Queta vs whatever else fungible bigs are available on the FA market. The guy barely played, and was behind almost everyone else. I’d be surprised they would give him a multi year deal.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,736
Celtics declined his option. This likely means they have an agreement on a multi year extension

A little bit surprising, since he hardly showed much to really warrant multiple years, in my opinion. Tillman or Kornet, yes, but Queta barely saw the floor.
likely be 2 years with minimal or no guarantees in year 2, that's the standard move if you like a guy enough to keep him on the 15 but want flexibility. If you want to cut him costs you like $250k max in year 2, if you like him you can keep him and he has bird rights at the end of it.

So instead of picking up his option, and then being limited to the minimum if he's good, you decline after getting a handshake on a 2 year deal for similar money, but he gets an extra $250k if you cut him, and the team has bird rights if he breaks out.
 

Imbricus

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 26, 2017
4,966
I like this. We need a big beefy center with a bit of remaining upside (he turns 25 this month). My two concerns with him when he joined (1) whether he would be foul prone (2) whether he had the necessary basketball IQ. I think he showed himself a bit weak in both areas, but maybe a little more seasoning helps. He has the ability to scare offensive players away from the basket, in a way that Kornet and Tillman don't.
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
8,198
Neemy and Kornet are retained. I wonder if either, or both, will try to add the three to their offense.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
10,397
San Francisco

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
13,580
Neemy and Kornet are retained. I wonder if either, or both, will try to add the three to their offense.
The Celtics have a pretty clear organizational philosophy that a big shouldn't be taking 3s unless he's really, really good at them. (Or can't do anything near the rim due to size limitations, like Tillman.)

Otherwise, they strongly prefer their bigs to be spacing vertically, screening, and hitting the offensive glass.

Everyone loves 5-out, but the Celtics are a very, very good 4-out offensive team, when the center in question isn't getting targeted on the defensive end in drop. Kornet's O-rating last year was 125 or something stupid.

Even for teams like Dallas that had trouble against Boston's defense, the issue wasn't their 4-out offense. It was that not all of the 4 could shoot above-the-break.
 

GreenMonster49

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
657
The Celtics have a pretty clear organizational philosophy that a big shouldn't be taking 3s unless he's really, really good at them. (Or can't do anything near the rim due to size limitations, like Tillman.)

Otherwise, they strongly prefer their bigs to be spacing vertically, screening, and hitting the offensive glass.

Everyone loves 5-out, but the Celtics are a very, very good 4-out offensive team, when the center in question isn't getting targeted on the defensive end in drop. Kornet's O-rating last year was 125 or something stupid.
It wasn't 125.

It was *157* (and was 143 in 2022-2023).

Kornet's WS/48 over his entire time in Boston is 0.213—which is very good (to say the least).
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
23,371
Pittsburgh, PA
Three years, non-Bird rights used for the 3rd year
That's cool. So it's a full NBA contract, but because he has 0-2 years service time, he is assignable to Maine at any time, at least for this coming season. He (and the union) would have to both consent to it in the following years. He draws his NBA salary when assigned to Maine, unlike two-way players. Big upgrade for the guy, big opportunity, hope he makes it (obviously).