Josh Richardson to the Celtics

[Cellar-Door]

How would JRich be a small negative if he’s replacing minites that were a larger negative? It’s a win-win…..you upgrade the position AND create a salary slot (discussed by Brad and Sheppard?). I fail to see where there is a negative unless you are simply valuing his contract dollar by his numbers which is missing the entire picture.

Yeah, I think there is a lot of that, honestly it came up in the Jarrett Allen discussion. People think "overpaying" is bad in the NBA as if you just tie a certain performance and $ figure scale together and it's always bad to pay more for production than the scale spits out. But the thing is.... acquiring talent in the NBA is hard, sometimes you want to pay slightly more per unit of production, because total production is more important than value. It's especially the case because the max and rookie deals mean you are getting surplus value elsewhere. In the NBA there is no real advantage to being frugal, getting the best talent, and positioning yourself to get more (rarely done in straight FA signings anymore) is the most important thing, even if it means overpaying. MIA is actually a great example, they overpaid guys last year to set themselves up for deals that made them better.

 

[lovegtm]

How would JRich be a small negative if he’s replacing minites that were a larger negative? It’s a win-win…..you upgrade the position AND create a salary slot (discussed by Brad and Sheppard?). I fail to see where there is a negative unless you are simply valuing his contract dollar by his numbers which is missing the entire picture.

I meant negative purely in a trade/asset sense. I also like Richardson on-court for the Celtics in a lot of different types of rosters.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

It will be difficult to determine how much it's a factor but it will be interesting seeing a core+ (ex Shroder of course) all under contract for multiple seasons. Other things can happen but we can't really point to contract status as a potential issue.

 

[radsoxfan]

Yeah the NBA has so many layers to contracts it’s hard to label these guys, and a contract can have different value to different teams.

But in a general sense, “net negative” I take as a reflection of what a player would get on the open market.

If the contract is more expensive than that, you generally have to staple picks or other value to get rid of them (like Kemba).

It’s possible for a player’s contract to be a “net negative” around the league, but still make sense for a particular team to a variety of factors.

 

[Lazy vs Crazy]

He just opted in to a contract that paid less than the extension annually, and Dallas just gave him away for nothing. That tells me this is an overpay, currently. The Celtics clearly think he'll be better in this system than he was in either of his last two stops. If he is what he is, it's a bad contract. If he improves, even just a bit, it's probably plus value.

 

[benhogan]

In the NBA there is no real advantage to being frugal., getting the best talent, and positioning yourself to get more (rarely done in straight FA signings anymore) is the most important thing, even if it means overpaying. MIA is actually a great example, they overpaid guys last year to set themselves up for deals that made them better.

Depends on the year. Dumping Theis ($5MM) for a ham n cheese sandwich to avoid the repeater was perfectly acceptable, as long as their gameplan was to spend like a drunken sailor going forward (like they are doing now)

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Depends on the year. Dumping Theis ($5MM) for a ham n cheese sandwich to avoid the repeater was perfectly acceptable, as long as their gameplan was to spend like a drunken sailor going forward (like they are doing now)

I was critical of Wyc & Co early on as I was frightened by their backgrounds. He eased those fears many years ago by always spending as much as necessary when we were competing for a Championship. With a new voice, better health and veteran depth we are right on the cusp of reaching that goal.

 

[JakeRae]

He just opted in to a contract that paid less than the extension annually, and Dallas just gave him away for nothing. That tells me this is an overpay, currently. The Celtics clearly think he'll be better in this system than he was in either of his last two stops. If he is what he is, it's a bad contract. If he improves, even just a bit, it's probably plus value.

There’s a second option, which is that the Celtics are preserving trade optionality going forward after this offseason played out with no certainty of there being a real star target at the deadline. They now have close to $40 million in contracts for next year that are easy to move from a roster construction standpoint in Horford and Richardson. If they need expirings this year because Beal becomes available, they have the salary for that already so the extra year of Richardson won’t be a problem.

I suspect it’s a mix of these, but I also think if this were truly about the Celtics making a bet on Richardson as a player, it wouldn’t be a one year extension.

 

[nighthob]

He just opted in to a contract that paid less than the extension annually, and Dallas just gave him away for nothing. That tells me this is an overpay, currently. The Celtics clearly think he'll be better in this system than he was in either of his last two stops. If he is what he is, it's a bad contract. If he improves, even just a bit, it's probably plus value.

Part of that might be the fact that opting in allowed him to be dealt to a team that he rooted for as a kid.

 

[Cellar-Door]

Depends on the year. Dumping Theis ($5MM) for a ham n cheese sandwich to avoid the repeater was perfectly acceptable, as long as their gameplan was to spend like a drunken sailor going forward (like they are doing now)

Yeah, I should have been more clear, I mean there is usually no incentive to prioritize bargins in contracts over talent.

 

[scottyno]

He just opted in to a contract that paid less than the extension annually, and Dallas just gave him away for nothing. That tells me this is an overpay, currently. The Celtics clearly think he'll be better in this system than he was in either of his last two stops. If he is what he is, it's a bad contract. If he improves, even just a bit, it's probably plus value.

If he were a free agent and being signed into cap space then you could argue that it's an overpay. But to the Celtics in 2022-23, unless you're worried about Wyc's wallet, whether he was extended for $5m $12m or $15m for 1 year it makes little difference because they were going to be over the cap without him. If they let him walk they couldn't turn around and sign someone else for $12m, they would have been replacing him with a rookie or a vet minimum guy.

 

[benhogan]

If he were a free agent and being signed into cap space then you could argue that it's an overpay. But to the Celtics in 2022-23, unless you're worried about Wyc's wallet, whether he was extended for $5m $12m or $15m for 1 year it makes little difference because they were going to be over the cap without him. If they let him walk they couldn't turn around and sign someone else for $12m, they would have been replacing him with a rookie or a vet minimum guy.

Also expecting ~$25MM of TT/EF TPE's to be used.

Wyc is pushing all the chips in on next season and beyond

 

[scottyno]

Also expecting ~$25MM of TT/EF TPE's to be used.

Wyc is pushing all the chips in on next season and beyond

Yeah, they have so many different ways they can improve the team going forward now between tradable contracts teams would actually want, a huge expiring contract, multiple TPEs, several decent young players, and all their draft picks

 

[lovegtm]

Yeah, they have so many different ways they can improve the team going forward now between tradable contracts teams would actually want, a huge expiring contract, multiple TPEs, several decent young players, and all their draft picks

This is set up really well for an "All the Pickz + some young guys" deal, with the TPEs then being used to round out the roster with 2-3 high-quality roleplayer vets.

The tax bill would be very large, but it's a pretty good environment in which to be short the dollar anyway, meaning that the usual owner liquidity considerations wouldn't be as big a deal.

 

[scottyno]

This is set up really well for an "All the Pickz + some young guys" deal, with the TPEs then being used to round out the roster with 2-3 high-quality roleplayer vets.

The tax bill would be very large, but it's a pretty good environment in which to be short the dollar anyway, meaning that the usual owner liquidity considerations wouldn't be as big a deal.

Yeah, Horford and 2 or 3 out of PP Langford Nesmith Grant Begarin plus a boatload of picks for a star makes too much sense to not be plans A B and C for Brad. If the deal happened this year they wouldn't even need to move Richardson, if it's next year he might have to be included to match salaries.

Cs end up paying something like $120m in 2022-23 for a starting lineup of Smart Brown Tatum TL and the new star (likely beal if this happens) and then that number gets sky high in a few years.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

I suspect it’s a mix of these, but I also think if this were truly about the Celtics making a bet on Richardson as a player, it wouldn’t be a one year extension.

There is one wrinkle here worth noting that does make it more of a bet on Richardson. When Richardson becomes a free agent, the Celtics will have early Bird rights and be able to extend him at 175% of the $12.4M. Unlike Schroder, who is gone as a free agent if he has a good year, the Celtics will have some control over Richardson. A longer extension would have been more of a commitment from the Celtics and not extending him would have put some limits on their ability to retain him. This deal is a sort of middle ground. C's spend $12.4M to maintain more control over Richardson if he pans out, but aren't stuck with a long term deal if he doesn't.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

He just opted in to a contract that paid less than the extension annually, and Dallas just gave him away for nothing. That tells me this is an overpay, currently. The Celtics clearly think he'll be better in this system than he was in either of his last two stops. If he is what he is, it's a bad contract. If he improves, even just a bit, it's probably plus value.

Agreed, though remember the leaguewide cap situation and available talent situation are big factors in any individual player's assessment. This summer is much less favorable cap-wise for a FA wing than next summer will be---where there do not appear to be a ton of quality players available.

In other words, what you say is true as to this year's $12 mil but likely not true as to next year's $12 mil.

 

[JakeRae]

There is one wrinkle here worth noting that does make it more of a bet on Richardson. When Richardson becomes a free agent, the Celtics will have early Bird rights and be able to extend him at 175% of the $12.4M. Unlike Schroder, who is gone as a free agent if he has a good year, the Celtics will have some control over Richardson. A longer extension would have been more of a commitment from the Celtics and not extending him would have put some limits on their ability to retain him. This deal is a sort of middle ground. C's spend $12.4M to maintain more control over Richardson if he pans out, but aren't stuck with a long term deal if he doesn't.

The Celtics already had (and still have) full Bird rights for Richardson. He was not acquired as a FA and is in the 4th year of his contract.

 

[benhogan]

https://www.celticsblog.com/2021/8/25/22629360/a-celticsblog-debate-should-aaron-nesmith-or-josh-richardson-start-boston-celtics-shooting-guard

These guys debate Richardson vs Nesmith starting Q1/Q3 with Jays/Smart/AH. I'd also throw PPs 3-pt shooting into that debate. Go with a Schroder/JRich 2nd unit backcourt.

Good to see more people embracing/considering the thought of 2023 playoffs & beyond by developing the young guys for trade bait or future roles on the Celtics.

 

[sezwho]

This is set up really well for an "All the Pickz + some young guys" deal, with the TPEs then being used to round out the roster with 2-3 high-quality roleplayer vets.

The tax bill would be very large, but it's a pretty good environment in which to be short the dollar anyway, meaning that the usual owner liquidity considerations wouldn't be as big a deal.

Its also worth noting that Covid was very good economically for people with paper wealth, unless of course their industry was hit directly, and I'm relieved they are spending on the team

I was critical of Wyc & Co early on as I was frightened by their backgrounds. He eased those fears many years ago by always spending as much as necessary when we were competing for a Championship. With a new voice, better health and veteran depth we are right on the cusp of reaching that goal.

I was less sanguine, but glad to be proved wrong. They definitely spent during the Championship window, to compete, full agreement there, but the concept of when the next window was open from their perspective, and thus triggering the $ floodgates, wasn't clear...until now.

Finally, the plan to strip mine the roster for a Beal-sized cap hole next year was proved as unlikely as many here pre-supposed.

 

[benhogan]

Its also worth noting that Covid was very good economically for people with paper wealth, unless of course their industry was hit directly, and I'm relieved they are spending on the team

Finally, the plan to strip mine the roster for a Beal-sized cap hole next year was proved as unlikely as many here pre-supposed.

Good point, the overall market has doubled from last year's low. Tech even more so.

Cap Space is anticipated to go up next season from this season's $112.4MM & $136.6 tax line

While the 2021/22 figures are essentially what we expected, the NBA has adjusted its 2022/23 projections and is now forecasting a $119MM cap and a $145MM tax line, according to Shams Charania of The Athletic (Twitter link).

The most recent projections for ’22/23, from last November, were a $115.7MM cap and a $140MM tax line, so that’s a significant increase and suggests that the NBA’s revenue projections are more positive than initially anticipated.

Throw in the TV deal tripling in size for an eventual larger boost to the cap down the road.

https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2021/08/salary-cap-tax-line-set-for-2021-22-nba-season.html

 

[Saints Rest]

Yeah, Horford and 2 or 3 out of PP Langford Nesmith Grant Begarin plus a boatload of picks for a star makes too much sense to not be plans A B and C for Brad. If the deal happened this year they wouldn't even need to move Richardson, if it's next year he might have to be included to match salaries.

Cs end up paying something like $120m in 2022-23 for a starting lineup of Smart Brown Tatum TL and the new star (likely beal if this happens) and then that number gets sky high in a few years.

There has been a lot of talk about Beal as that would-be available star who would be a good fit next to the Jays. But who else might fit that mold? Presumably, we would be looking for an established star (i.e. on his second contract or later; at least an all-star level, if not higher (as in All-NBA level); probably someone suffering on a bad team who wants out or someone whose own co-stars have limited run left in them; and finally, being a good fit next to the Jays.

So who comprises that list?

 

[NomarsFool]

In an ideal world, you'd probably be looking at someone who might be a more PF or C, or potentially a PG. That said, the NBA these days is a wing dominated league - so Beal isn't a terrible fit, by any means.

In terms of PF/Cs who are on sort of the same development path as the Jays:

Bam Adebayo
Lauri Markkanen
John Collins

Come to mind.

 

[Rustjive]

KAT, potentially. I've been thinking about that parallel in my mind for a while - in that case, Beal is your Ray Allen, Jaylen is your Big Al, and KAT is your KG. But because Jaylen is better than Al and KAT isn't KG, it's not as immediately appealing, and I'd like to see Beal/Jaylen/Jayson work it out for a season.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

KAT, potentially. I've been thinking about that parallel in my mind for a while - in that case, Beal is your Ray Allen, Jaylen is your Big Al, and KAT is your KG. But because Jaylen is better than Al and KAT isn't KG, it's not as immediately appealing, and I'd like to see Beal/Jaylen/Jayson work it out for a season.

You may be on to something but with a tweak. The Beal deal would pair him with Tatum at which point Jaylen would become redundant and be a nice trade partner with Minny…….Tatum, Beal, and KAT check off a ton of boxes that makes it easy to fit pieces around them.

 

[DGreenwood]

You may be on to something but with a tweak. The Beal deal would pair him with Tatum at which point Jaylen would become redundant and be a nice trade partner with Minny…….Tatum, Beal, and KAT check off a ton of boxes that makes it easy to fit pieces around them.

I think that's what he meant.

I was about to make a post saying there's no way they add Beal and KAT to Tatum and Jaylen but then I realized he was shipping Jaylen out for KAT (hence the Big Al reference).

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

In an ideal world, you'd probably be looking at someone who might be a more PF or C, or potentially a PG. That said, the NBA these days is a wing dominated league - so Beal isn't a terrible fit, by any means.

In terms of PF/Cs who are on sort of the same development path as the Jays:

Bam Adebayo
Lauri Markkanen
John Collins

Come to mind.

Zach Levine was mentioned on Forsberg's podcast as possibly wanting a change of scenary.

 

[benhogan]

There has been a lot of talk about Beal as that would-be available star who would be a good fit next to the Jays. But who else might fit that mold? Presumably, we would be looking for an established star (i.e. on his second contract or later; at least an all-star level, if not higher (as in All-NBA level); probably someone suffering on a bad team who wants out or someone whose own co-stars have limited run left in them; and finally, being a good fit next to the Jays.

So who comprises that list?

Two things need to happen:
1. Player demands to be dealt to Boston in particular. That's the only path to Beal, KAT, or Zach Lavine
2. Team severely underperforms and blows up the situation at the trade deadline by resetting and demanding draft picks/youngsters. No idea who will be that this year, but a few teams will disappoint and be sellers.

Good fits/timeline but very, very remote:
Ben Simmons
Spider Mitchell
De'Aaron Fox
Christian Wood
Jeremi Grant
OG Anunoby
Fred VanVleet
Dejounte Murray
SGA
John Collins

 

[TripleOT]

Beal obviously has a strong connection to Tatum, and LaVine also trains with Tatum and their super trainer Drew Hansen.

Mitchell is close to both Jays.

 

[scottyno]

Guys who signed 5 year extensions that are just starting this year aren't even worth including on a list of very remote guys, there's 0 chance they're being moved so soon.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Guys who signed 5 year extensions that are just starting this year aren't even worth including on a list of very remote guys, there's 0 chance they're being moved so soon.

NBA contracts are best viewed as including superstar trade options. To me a five year deal is essentially five one year contracts with trade options including triggers that get more valuable (to the player, because SoSH still struggles with who has the asset in an option transaction) over time.

You are likely correct that a newly signed Spida Mitchell probably won't demand a trade immediately but if he decides that he wants to play with his buddies in Boston next season the Jazz are unlikely to just blow that off simply because of the deal.

As HRB notes regularly, NBA front offices customers are agents (ex Rich Paul who may have another agenda) and once these requests become real, teams are effectively forced to choose amongst suboptimal outcomes. Holding a high profile player "hostage" because of a deal they agreed to is typically the worst of all the choices.

 

[benhogan]

Guys who signed 5 year extensions that are just starting this year aren't even worth including on a list of very remote guys, there's 0 chance they're being moved so soon.

None of those players on that list really seem possible at the moment.

IMO this team is being built to compete for Championships in the 2023 playoffs and beyond. So Brad has over a year and a half to get that 3rd star, that's a shit ton of theta, odd stuff can happen over 18 months.

 

[mcpickl]

Two things need to happen:
1. Player demands to be dealt to Boston in particular. That's the only path to Beal, KAT, or Zach Lavine
2. Team severely underperforms and blows up the situation at the trade deadline by resetting and demanding draft picks/youngsters. No idea who will be that this year, but a few teams will disappoint and be sellers.

Good fits/timeline but very, very remote:
Ben Simmons
Spider Mitchell
De'Aaron Fox
Christian Wood
Jeremi Grant
OG Anunoby
Fred VanVleet
Dejounte Murray
SGA
John Collins

Outside of Beal, Fox would be the guy I'd have my eye on.

Ever since the Lebron/Wade/Bosh team up, I'm always looking for guys that played amateur all star games and/or international competitions together. Those both seem to be pretty good bonding experiences.

Three guys who hit those pretty hard with Tatum are Bam, Mitchell and Fox. The first two guys situations are surely too good for them to want out, but Fox is probably going to miss the playoffs for the sixth straight time after the biggest veteran addition they made this year is Tristan Thompson.

Next summer is almost certainly at least a year too early for Sacramento to move him, but if the Celtics don't add a third star-type by then Fox would be the guy I'd be monitoring after that.

 

[JM3]

Fox is a non-shooting, non-defense playing player whose team has been better with him off the court 3 of his 4 seasons - the only exception being in his 2nd year, which was the year he shot 37% 3s (as opposed to his other years where he shot 31/29/32).

Guy is fun, but doesn't really move the needle unless he actually can be a 37%+ 3 point shooter, & even then, I'm not super excited.

 

[benhogan]

Fox is a non-shooting, non-defense playing player whose team has been better with him off the court 3 of his 4 seasons - the only exception being in his 2nd year, which was the year he shot 37% 3s (as opposed to his other years where he shot 31/29/32).

Guy is fun, but doesn't really move the needle unless he actually can be a 37%+ 3 point shooter, & even then, I'm not super excited.

good, we can get him for Grant+ ballast then

 

[mcpickl]

Fox is a non-shooting, non-defense playing player whose team has been better with him off the court 3 of his 4 seasons - the only exception being in his 2nd year, which was the year he shot 37% 3s (as opposed to his other years where he shot 31/29/32).

Guy is fun, but doesn't really move the needle unless he actually can be a 37%+ 3 point shooter, & even then, I'm not super excited.

He wouldn't be my first choice if I could pick anyone in the league either. But of guys that could try to shoot their way off their team, and have some kind of connection to Tatum, he's near the top of the list.

I'd expect if he were on the Celtics, rather than the Kings, his 3 pt % would go up. He's been at your 37% mark at catch and shoot 3s the past three years, which I'd guess he'd get more of playing with Tatum/Jaylen over Hield/Barnes.

I don't think he's a non-defense playing player either. I think he'd be passable on a good team. After having Kemba, Kyrie and IT at that spot, he might seem like he's Dennis Johnson by comparison.

 

[JM3]

The other thing with Fox is he apparently likes just being the man in Sacramento - to the point they don't really want to put him into a Ben Simmons trade.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

He wouldn't be my first choice if I could pick anyone in the league either. But of guys that could try to shoot their way off their team, and have some kind of connection to Tatum, he's near the top of the list.

I'd expect if he were on the Celtics, rather than the Kings, his 3 pt % would go up. He's been at your 37% mark at catch and shoot 3s the past three years, which I'd guess he'd get more of playing with Tatum/Jaylen over Hield/Barnes.

I don't think he's a non-defense playing player either. I think he'd be passable on a good team. After having Kemba, Kyrie and IT at that spot, he might seem like he's Dennis Johnson by comparison.

Yeah I don’t understand the non-defense part at all. The negatives I saw with the Kings defensively last year were having Hield and a rookie (Halliburton) in the backcourt with him while Holmes and Bagley both have zero understanding of NBA defensive concepts. The two best Kings defenders of their regulars imo were Barnes and Fox……and it wasn’t really close. They were the only two with the fundamentals and were so frustrated at times with the others that they just followed suit and pushed the ball the other way after it went through the basket.

 

[lexrageorge]

NBA contracts are best viewed as including superstar trade options. To me a five year deal is essentially five one year contracts with trade options including triggers that get more valuable (to the player, because SoSH still struggles with who has the asset in an option transaction) over time.

You are likely correct that a newly signed Spida Mitchell probably won't demand a trade immediately but if he decides that he wants to play with his buddies in Boston next season the Jazz are unlikely to just blow that off simply because of the deal.

As HRB notes regularly, NBA front offices customers are agents (ex Rich Paul who may have another agenda) and once these requests become real, teams are effectively forced to choose amongst suboptimal outcomes. Holding a high profile player "hostage" because of a deal they agreed to is typically the worst of all the choices.

I do think you may be understating the amount of leverage a team has if they control a player for 4 more years. The team can certainly tell the agent, "Yeah, I know he wants to play in city XYZ, but the have shit for assets and I'm not going to lose my job by dumping off my star player for a bunch of crap. Come back to me with something realistic and maybe we'll talk. Otherwise, wait 2 years".

Still, my uneducated guess is that the situation is unlikely to ever get to that point. A player that signs a 5 year extension with life changing money is probably still quite happy he got that cash, and may not be looking to get out right away. And the team can certainly wine and dine the player to their heart's content; there is a reason Brad Stevens consulted with Tatum and Brown before hiring Udoka. EDIT: Also, the good agents know which teams have the right assets and how those assets match up. So they are unlikely to force the issue if the assets don't exist; they'll advise the player first which teams have a realistic shot of acquiring their client.

Remote possibility is probably the right category for a player like Mitchell. Unless the Jazz really covet an asset Boston has, or covet an asset they can get as part of a multi-team trade with Boston, the trade is not gonna happen even in the unlikely event Mitchell were to demand it. Besides, the Jazz are a good team and certainly will contend in the Western Conference again, no matter what the Lakers fanboys think.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

I do think you may be understating the amount of leverage a team has if they control a player for 4 more years. The team can certainly tell the agent, "Yeah, I know he wants to play in city XYZ, but the have shit for assets and I'm not going to lose my job by dumping off my star player for a bunch of crap. Come back to me with something realistic and maybe we'll talk. Otherwise, wait 2 years".

Still, my uneducated guess is that the situation is unlikely to ever get to that point. A player that signs a 5 year extension with life changing money is probably still quite happy he got that cash, and may not be looking to get out right away. And the team can certainly wine and dine the player to their heart's content; there is a reason Brad Stevens consulted with Tatum and Brown before hiring Udoka. EDIT: Also, the good agents know which teams have the right assets and how those assets match up. So they are unlikely to force the issue if the assets don't exist; they'll advise the player first which teams have a realistic shot of acquiring their client.

Remote possibility is probably the right category for a player like Mitchell. Unless the Jazz really covet an asset Boston has, or covet an asset they can get as part of a multi-team trade with Boston, the trade is not gonna happen even in the unlikely event Mitchell were to demand it. Besides, the Jazz are a good team and certainly will contend in the Western Conference again, no matter what the Lakers fanboys think.

Agree with everything you posted here - by definition, a player who just inked a new five year deal (and only a select few get that contract) is almost certainly staying put for a while. However to me, the length of an NBA contract is not that important.

My point is that the league is structured such that star players should be considered to be on much shorter deals than what we see nominally. I just found a random study done in 2018 that showed the average NBA player stays with the same team for about 2.2 years which feels fairly accurate and may even be stale given the movement over the past two off-seasons. I did not link it because I haven't dug into it but the point stands. If an NBA player wants out, teams tend to accommodate them if only for good will purposes.

Again, think about whom the league's top 20 players were playing for two years ago. The pace of turnover is pretty staggering and it feels like its increasing.

 

[scottyno]

My point is that the league is structured such that star players should be considered to be on much shorter deals than what we see nominally. I just found a random study done in 2018 that showed the average NBA player stays with the same team for about 2.2 years which feels fairly accurate and may even be stale given the movement over the past two off-seasons. I did not link it because I haven't dug into it but the point stands. If an NBA player wants out, teams tend to accommodate them if only for good will purposes.

Again, think about whom the league's top 20 players were playing for two years ago. The pace of turnover is pretty staggering and it feels like its increasing.

2.2 years has to be because there are so many guys who are traded as expiring contracts or guys off the street who sign 1 year deals and are gone. Sure players aren't staying with their teams as long as they used to, but you can still count on minimum 6-7 years out of your drafted star before you have to start worrying about them leaving in 99% of cases.

 

[JM3]

Sorry. I think I just have short PG PTSD & have decided they are a detriment to switchability & overall team defense in the NBA of the immediate future.

Fox is pretty good for a short person. I just don't think that archetype is a game changer without better shooting than he has shown. As evidenced by the negative on/off with the KANGZ.

 

[benhogan]

2.2 years has to be because there are so many guys who are traded as expiring contracts or guys off the street who sign 1 year deals and are gone. Sure players aren't staying with their teams as long as they used to, but you can still count on minimum 6-7 years out of your drafted star before you have to start worrying about them leaving in 99% of cases.

That's very fair. Klutch basically started publicly discussing AD wanting out 1.5 seasons before the option season. So the Pels got 6.5 seasons out of him before he just absolutely quit on them.

The Kings are a hair unique in being consistently awful and having two young PGs that are on the rise (Halliburton/Mitchell). I wouldn't expect them to get any better by adding their offseason jewel, Tristan Thompson, to the rotation. They may just blow this up midseason and try to move off Hield, Bagley, Barnes which could lead them to go full OKC/Process next Summer. For all the #s you posted, Fox may also be dangled in the next 18months.

Anyone interested in Bagley as a young re-hab acquisition and getting his RFA rights in the process? $11.3MM for this season

 

[Cesar Crespo]

Yeah I don’t understand the non-defense part at all. The negatives I saw with the Kings defensively last year were having Hield and a rookie (Halliburton) in the backcourt with him while Holmes and Bagley both have zero understanding of NBA defensive concepts. The two best Kings defenders of their regulars imo were Barnes and Fox……and it wasn’t really close. They were the only two with the fundamentals and were so frustrated at times with the others that they just followed suit and pushed the ball the other way after it went through the basket.

Yeah, the Kings are an interesting team with roster construction problems. Their back court is incredibly promising though. Haliburton has the tools to play D and will be building off a great rookie year. Him and Fox can easily play alongside each other too. The only flaws I see with Fox's game are his 3 point shooting, which I'm not sure you can blame on spacing, and for a PG, he's a below average FT shooter too. He is a great finisher though and his FG% from 10-16 is .408 and from 16-3 is .381 so there is hope he could improve in the area. Davion Mitchell is also looking like a player, though him and Fox on the court at the same time may be problematic, though Fox has a 6'7 wingspan which isn't bad for a PG. Mitchell's is 6'4. Hali is 6'7.5. It's crazy that Carsen Edwards has about the same wingspan as Fox and Hali despite being 5'11.

Then they have Barnes who is a decent player and Bagley who showed some promise last year as a stretch big but hasn't shown much defensively. After that, there's really not much on the team. They really are a terrible team but I an envious of their back court. If Mitchell is for real, I wonder if they'd ever go with a Bagley/Barnes/Hailiburton/Fox/Mitchell lineup. They'll probably have to trade one of Fox, Haliburton or Mitchell for a legit wing.

Curious drafting but going with who you think is BPA even when you have 2 young PGs is probably the correct way to go.

 

[Cellar-Door]

NBA contracts are best viewed as including superstar trade options. To me a five year deal is essentially five one year contracts with trade options including triggers that get more valuable (to the player, because SoSH still struggles with who has the asset in an option transaction) over time.

You are likely correct that a newly signed Spida Mitchell probably won't demand a trade immediately but if he decides that he wants to play with his buddies in Boston next season the Jazz are unlikely to just blow that off simply because of the deal.

As HRB notes regularly, NBA front offices customers are agents (ex Rich Paul who may have another agenda) and once these requests become real, teams are effectively forced to choose amongst suboptimal outcomes. Holding a high profile player "hostage" because of a deal they agreed to is typically the worst of all the choices.

I don't think this is correct I'd say it's a 2 year deal with 2 trade options and a player option (3 years if the player wasn't good enough to get the 5th year as an option).

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Anyone interested in Bagley as a young re-hab acquisition and getting his RFA rights in the process? $11.3MM for this season

No. We are looking to formulate an elite young veteran core with other veterans and cheap rookie deals surrounding them. We are no longer in rebuilding mode. Hard pass on Bagley.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

Bagley to me is a guy you take a shot on if he gets to vet minimum status, if you have internal pressure to do so (e.g. Tatum or Brown agitates for it AND the cost is very low), or if you end up desparate for a big and you can get him for MLE kind of money.

I'd much rather sign Harry Giles---who has a broader skillset, knows Tatum, and is available at that price range.

 

[nighthob]

I'd much rather sign Harry Giles---who has a broader skillset, knows Tatum, and is available at that price range.

In a vacuum I’d prefer Giles too. Unfortunately that vacuum’s wheels are held together by duct tape, baling wire, and Elmer’s Glue-All.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

I don't think this is correct I'd say it's a 2 year deal with 2 trade options and a player option (3 years if the player wasn't good enough to get the 5th year as an option).

Not saying my take is scientific but if say, KD, asks for a trade at the deadline my guess is that the Nets don't simply tell him too bad. Maybe I am wrong but I suspect they conduct an exercise where they feel out the market and then Marks tries to determine which outcome lets him stay employed the longest.

If an NBA superstar contracts were risk manageable beyond injuries, my bet is teams would start building in hedges that take effect as soon as the players is dealable - perhaps not in each instance but I bet it would be more common than we think

 

[PedroKsBambino]

In a vacuum I’d prefer Giles too. Unfortunately that vacuum’s wheels are held together by duct tape, baling wire, and Elmer’s Glue-All.

Yeah, Giles is highly unlikely to hold up or ever amount to anything. But at his current price, a reasonable gamble of a roster spot generically...