Offseason Rumors/News

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
25,078
If we rank his draft class by VORP, he's the ninth pick of the second round. There's actually a couple of really good entire teams on the list ahead of him.

Sure, growth curve. Probably have no other choice. But damn, max money for a guy who doesn't make his teammates better or play any defense whateoever (and is already trending downward on D) and had a .511 TS% in year 3. What a country.
Agreed on that final sentence. I’m not saying I’d be going to work Monday excited to announce this extension but as you say there were not really any other options. I’ll reiterate the overreaction to a 21-yr old not making his teammates better (as if that is his responsibility on a rookie deal) or understsnding NBA defensive schemes. I find value in a 21yr olds ability to rise about last seasons turmoil probably more than advanced numbers for a player on a lottery team in an awful setting.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,332
NYC
While I'm sure watching that interview would make me like Wall (and I always thought he seemed like a cool dude) I'm not sure it would convince me that he's likely to be a positive NBA player going forward. He turns 32 in a week; has struggled with his weight; had a game at his peak that was heavily reliant on speed and athleticism; has a career .517 TS and .323 from 3; is a poor rebounder; turns the ball over a ton for a guy whose only plus skill is playmaking; and has not played more than 41 games in a season since 2016-17.

Basically: Westbrook with much worse health/conditioning and poor rebounding. I'm not sure he isn't a net negative for the Clips, who have a bunch of guys who like to create with the ball in their hands, and do so much more efficiently than Wall (Kawhi, PG, Batum, Jackson, Powell, Mann, e.g.) Are we sure this isn't Westbrook to the Lakers redux? In terms of pure game, I might actually rather have Westbrook (with the caveat that he seems less likely than Wall to accept the secondary role that his flawed/diminished game dictates).

I'm high on the Clips overall because of Kawhi and PG, the impressive depth behind them, and Coach Lue. But losing 24 y.o. Hartenstein (a budding NBA stud imo) while bringing in 32 y.o. Wall seems like pretty terrible trade-off to me.

Paging ElUno?
 
Last edited:

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
7,989
around the way
I find value in a 21yr olds ability to rise about last seasons turmoil probably more than advanced numbers for a player on a lottery team in an awful setting.
Yeah perseverance is nice. I'm just thinking about what he does well, and the list begins and ends with "gets shots up". As you note, that's fine for a third year player. But I don't think that we're setting the bar unrealistically high by pointing out that he's really inefficient, but also doesn't make up for that by setting up teammates. And he doesn't make up for that by playing defense either. If you're betting that his continued offensive growth turns him into an efficient scorer on this extension, that may not be a bad bet. I just wouldn't feel good about maxing that guy. Gotta do it, but you're locking up a lot of cap space.

His Darko same age comps are all over the place (Cousins, Harrison Barnes, Beasley, CJ Miles, and McLemore). His career games comps are even more bizarre (include Vucevic and Svi!).

Looking at it a little longer, maybe the error bands on this one are wider than I thought. Possible it doesn't end in a car crash, which for the Knicks would be huge.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
26,988
I just wouldn't feel good about maxing that guy. Gotta do it, but you're locking up a lot of cap space.
The problem NYK had - and the problems all GMs have with the way the cap is structured - is that if NYK didn't extend him, is that the odds of replacing him with a better player are probably pretty low. More or less the same reasoning the same reasoning for the Otto Porter max and the Michael Porter Jr. max (etc. etc. etc.).

I think NYK did well to keep it to $30M a year. Barrett is young enough and should be good enough (barring injury) to keep that contract tradable without attaching too many assets, which I would guess is the biggest worry for GMs.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
5,179
Imaginationland
While I'm sure watching that interview would make me like Wall (and I always thought he seemed like a cool dude) I'm not sure it would convince me that he's likely to be a positive NBA player going forward. He turns 32 in a week; has struggled with his weight; had a game at his peak that was heavily reliant on speed and athleticism; has a career .517 TS and .323 from 3; is a poor rebounder; turns the ball over a ton for a guy whose only plus skill is playmaking; and has not played more than 41 games in a season since 2016-17.

Basically: Westbrook with much worse health/conditioning and poor rebounding. I'm not sure he isn't a net negative for the Clips, who have a bunch of guys who like to create with the ball in their hands, and do so much more efficiently than Wall (Kawhi, PG, Batum, Jackson, Powell, Mann, e.g.) Are we sure this isn't Westbrook to the Lakers redux? In terms of pure game, I might actually rather have Westbrook (with the caveat that he seems less likely than Wall to accept the secondary role that his flawed/diminished game dictates).

I'm high on the Clips overall because of Kawhi and PG, the impressive depth behind them, and Coach Lue. But losing 24 y.o. Hartenstein (a budding NBA stud imo) while bringing in 32 y.o. Wall seems like pretty terrible trade-off to me.

Paging ElUno?
Ditto on Wall, but w/regards to the entire team, I absolutely don't see this team as a title contender (and it feels like it's just me). The depth is nice but it's based around the idea that both George and Kawhi will be healthy at the end of the year. Kawhi has averaged 36 games per year since coming to the Clippers, George has averaged 44. They are 31 and 32 years old. Everyone [rightly] gives the Lakers crap for having to rely on a 90 year old Lebron and an extremely fragile Anthony Davis, but the Clippers duo is just as unreliable. How does this team have basically the same title odds as the Bucks?
 

ElUno20

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
5,166
While I'm sure watching that interview would make me like Wall (and I always thought he seemed like a cool dude) I'm not sure it would convince me that he's likely to be a positive NBA player going forward. He turns 32 in a week; has struggled with his weight; had a game at his peak that was heavily reliant on speed and athleticism; has a career .517 TS and .323 from 3; is a poor rebounder; turns the ball over a ton for a guy whose only plus skill is playmaking; and has not played more than 41 games in a season since 2016-17.

Basically: Westbrook with much worse health/conditioning and poor rebounding. I'm not sure he isn't a net negative for the Clips, who have a bunch of guys who like to create with the ball in their hands, and do so much more efficiently than Wall (Kawhi, PG, Batum, Jackson, Powell, Mann, e.g.) Are we sure this isn't Westbrook to the Lakers redux? In terms of pure game, I might actually rather have Westbrook (with the caveat that he seems less likely than Wall to accept the secondary role that his flawed/diminished game dictates).

I'm high on the Clips overall because of Kawhi and PG, the impressive depth behind them, and Coach Lue. But losing 24 y.o. Hartenstein (a budding NBA stud imo) while bringing in 32 y.o. Wall seems like pretty terrible trade-off to me.

Paging ElUno?
Their depth pretty much shields them from Wall being a net negative. They've found some scrubs over the years who can easily step in if he's a disaster. Lue is also an elite coach with full real power, it's not a Vogel/Westbrook situation. If wall sucks, lue will slot in next man up.

In terms of the optimism/offseason hype, i can confirm in the Clipps online circles, a lot of soiled pants over Wall. He's looked amazing, great shape, and worked on his shot a ton.

Me personally, I'm echoing Euclis' sentiment. Ive been a clipps fan for over 20 years so ive seen this a million times. On paper, I'd take them over anyone today in a 7 game series (Kawhi also looks incredible physically. He spent a ton of time in the weight room). But in the real actual world, they have no shot over a 9 month season. 1st or 2nd round at best with at least 3-4 huge injuries.

The new stadium does look incredible though and i cant wait to watch their d leaguers debut it in 2 years with PG and Kawhi in wheelchairs on the bench.
 

Murderer's Crow

Dragon Wangler 216
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
20,927
Garden City
Woj says the Knicks and Jazz are still making progress on the Mitchell trade. Contradicting himself where he said Rose put a Monday deadline on the deal. (Woj was on ESPN radio)
 

tbb345

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
4,230
While I'm sure watching that interview would make me like Wall (and I always thought he seemed like a cool dude) I'm not sure it would convince me that he's likely to be a positive NBA player going forward. He turns 32 in a week; has struggled with his weight; had a game at his peak that was heavily reliant on speed and athleticism; has a career .517 TS and .323 from 3; is a poor rebounder; turns the ball over a ton for a guy whose only plus skill is playmaking; and has not played more than 41 games in a season since 2016-17.

Basically: Westbrook with much worse health/conditioning and poor rebounding. I'm not sure he isn't a net negative for the Clips, who have a bunch of guys who like to create with the ball in their hands, and do so much more efficiently than Wall (Kawhi, PG, Batum, Jackson, Powell, Mann, e.g.) Are we sure this isn't Westbrook to the Lakers redux? In terms of pure game, I might actually rather have Westbrook (with the caveat that he seems less likely than Wall to accept the secondary role that his flawed/diminished game dictates).

I'm high on the Clips overall because of Kawhi and PG, the impressive depth behind them, and Coach Lue. But losing 24 y.o. Hartenstein (a budding NBA stud imo) while bringing in 32 y.o. Wall seems like pretty terrible trade-off to me.

Paging ElUno?
I have no idea how Wall will turn out but there’s some huge differences between him and Westbrook, the biggest being his attitude and acceptance of what he’s become.

What makes Russ toxic is that he still thinks he’s a superstar and is refusing to adapt his game at all. That’s why no one wants him. He basically has 0 self awareness…his press conference after the season was over was one of the most awkward things I have ever seen. He came out and blamed literally everyone else and tried to portray himself as some sort of martyr that no one supported. I mean his agent released a statement dumping on him after they parted ways. That’s pretty much unheard of.

I think Wall’s time away from the game and what he went through will make him much more willing to fit in and do what’s necessary to stay on the court. It seems like his heads on straight and I am rooting for him to do well
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
7,420
New York, NY
The problem NYK had - and the problems all GMs have with the way the cap is structured - is that if NYK didn't extend him, is that the odds of replacing him with a better player are probably pretty low. More or less the same reasoning the same reasoning for the Otto Porter max and the Michael Porter Jr. max (etc. etc. etc.).

I think NYK did well to keep it to $30M a year. Barrett is young enough and should be good enough (barring injury) to keep that contract tradable without attaching too many assets, which I would guess is the biggest worry for GMs.
I’d disagree on pretty much all of this. For the Porter Jr. comps (both of them) those aren’t terrible comps in terms of career trajectory.
54822
The problem for the Knicks is (1) getting Otto Porter Jr. on a near max is a bad outcome; and (2) both Porter Jr.’s had progressed to a significantly higher level of actual performance before they signed big money deals.
54825
Barrett isn’t a guy you lock up early on a near max, he’s a guy you let go into RFA. The worst thing, if you want to keep him, is that he gets someone to commit an actual max contract and you match for not too much more. The discount here just isn’t close to big enough to justify the risk the Knicks are taking on and they also should understand (but don’t) that they aren’t in a roster building phase where overpaying to lock up good players makes sense (assuming RJ Barrett profiles to develop into a good player, which is a fair assumption). In other words, they aren’t Denver.

The Knicks could get lucky here, but I wouldn’t count on it. Plus, it’s the Knicks so they deserve no benefit of the doubt in terms of scouting/projection. They are a mediocre team largely locked into continuing to be mediocre.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
27,473
DPM's most similar players are... Harrison Barnes, CJ Miles, etc.

Barrett could break out, but he certainly looks like a guy whose reasonable ceiling is now "sub-All Star level starter" with a floor of "bench gunner"
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
26,988
Barrett isn’t a guy you lock up early on a near max, he’s a guy you let go into RFA. The worst thing, if you want to keep him, is that he gets someone to commit an actual max contract and you match for not too much more. The discount here just isn’t close to big enough to justify the risk the Knicks are taking on and they also should understand (but don’t) that they aren’t in a roster building phase where overpaying to lock up good players makes sense (assuming RJ Barrett profiles to develop into a good player, which is a fair assumption). In other words, they aren’t Denver.

The Knicks could get lucky here, but I wouldn’t count on it. Plus, it’s the Knicks so they deserve no benefit of the doubt in terms of scouting/projection. They are a mediocre team largely locked into continuing to be mediocre.
I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about. If NYK has the same feelig as SOSH and feels like Barrett probably isn't going to make The Leap, by signing him now, they've saved a year and $65+M versus the max (more next year). And whether NYK extended him now or at RFA, NYK wasn't going to let him walk. That's just not something they could do.

I'll also say that if NYK and SOSH are on the same page, the 4/$120M is certainly more tradable than a max deal would have been.

The biggest downside for NYK is if Barrett blows up in the next four years and decides he wants out. I'm sure at this moment the NYK brass would rather be facing a situation in four years where they are trying to convince an All-Star Barrett to stay rather than trying to figure out how to get rid of a max contract Barrett who is not playing at anywhere near a max level.
read Barrett and the market correctly that someone is going to offer him a max deal at RFA, they've saved $65M by locking him up early.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
590
I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about. If NYK has the same feelig as SOSH and feels like Barrett probably isn't going to make The Leap, by signing him now, they've saved a year and $65+M versus the max (more next year). And whether NYK extended him now or at RFA, NYK wasn't going to let him walk. That's just not something they could do.

I'll also say that if NYK and SOSH are on the same page, the 4/$120M is certainly more tradable than a max deal would have been.

The biggest downside for NYK is if Barrett blows up in the next four years and decides he wants out. I'm sure at this moment the NYK brass would rather be facing a situation in four years where they are trying to convince an All-Star Barrett to stay rather than trying to figure out how to get rid of a max contract Barrett who is not playing at anywhere near a max level.
read Barrett and the market correctly that someone is going to offer him a max deal at RFA, they've saved $65M by locking him up early.
Worth noting that Woj used the "up to" qualifier in his reporting. That phrase has been doing a lot of work in the early reports of FA signings as of late. Take a look at how Chris Paul's deal was initially reported versus what was actually guaranteed.

"Haynes: BREAKING NEWS: Free agent star Chris Paul reaches agreement with Phoenix Suns on four-year, up to $120 million."

Actual deal was the first two years guaranteed at 58 in total, a third year at 30.8 with a partial guarantee of 15 and and a completely unguaranteed fourth year at 30.

Not saying that is necessarily the case with Barrett, but until somebody comes out with the exact details, I would not assume it is a straight 4/120.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
5,179
Imaginationland
I have no idea how Wall will turn out but there’s some huge differences between him and Westbrook, the biggest being his attitude and acceptance of what he’s become.

What makes Russ toxic is that he still thinks he’s a superstar and is refusing to adapt his game at all. That’s why no one wants him. He basically has 0 self awareness…his press conference after the season was over was one of the most awkward things I have ever seen. He came out and blamed literally everyone else and tried to portray himself as some sort of martyr that no one supported. I mean his agent released a statement dumping on him after they parted ways. That’s pretty much unheard of.

I think Wall’s time away from the game and what he went through will make him much more willing to fit in and do what’s necessary to stay on the court. It seems like his heads on straight and I am rooting for him to do well
Wall's biggest problem (other than the fact that best case he's likely to be a shadow of his former athletic self) is that he's played 103 games total over the last five years. Whatever anyone wants to say about Russ, at least he's available.

On Russ being toxic and refusing to adapt his game, that's true, but I think the same could have been said of Carmelo after his very brief stint in Houston. It absolutely looked like Melo's career was very abruptly over, that he wouldn't be able to adapt to an effective bench role, but he ended up having a couple of very solid seasons as a roleplayer in Portland and LA. I'm not quite ready to write off Westbrook just yet, even as things look awfully bad.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
63,154

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
26,988
Not saying that is necessarily the case with Barrett, but until somebody comes out with the exact details, I would not assume it is a straight 4/120.
Good point. Twitter saying approximately 4/$110M with $10M in bonuses. To me, this sounds like a reasonable contract but what do I know?
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,332
NYC
I have no idea how Wall will turn out but there’s some huge differences between him and Westbrook, the biggest being his attitude and acceptance of what he’s become.

What makes Russ toxic is that he still thinks he’s a superstar and is refusing to adapt his game at all. That’s why no one wants him. He basically has 0 self awareness…his press conference after the season was over was one of the most awkward things I have ever seen. He came out and blamed literally everyone else and tried to portray himself as some sort of martyr that no one supported. I mean his agent released a statement dumping on him after they parted ways. That’s pretty much unheard of.

I think Wall’s time away from the game and what he went through will make him much more willing to fit in and do what’s necessary to stay on the court. It seems like his heads on straight and I am rooting for him to do well
I'm rooting for him, too; and I noted your key point about the difference in mindset between him and Westbrook ("Westbrook seems less likely than Wall to accept the secondary role that his flawed/diminished game dictates"). I'm just dubious that the time off will give him efficiency, rebounding, or ball control skills he lacked before his most recent injury; and I worry about how his speed-based game will age. But who knows, maybe there's something to the glowing reviews El Uno says he's been getting this offseason.

As far as the Clips in general, I'm more sanguine than Euclis, but am naturally (mildly) annoyed at ESPN's recent anointing of them as the overwhelming WC favorite:

West Champs
LA Clippers: 8
Phoenix Suns: 3
Golden State Warriors: 3
Denver Nuggets: 1

Then again, Steph and the Warriors are always on the lookout for signs of disrespect, so ... good.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
28,173
Good point. Twitter saying approximately 4/$110M with $10M in bonuses. To me, this sounds like a reasonable contract but what do I know?
given where Knicks are in cycle, and the critical importance of not losing him as you noted, I don’t hate the deal. But it’s a lot of money for him—-he’s not yet the player Marcus Smart is and he’s paid nearly 50% more the next four years. You get some upside, scoring gets paid more than defense, cap going up etc. but there’s reason to wonder if it’s a good contract too.

as you noted, Knicks choices are limited so I get it. But there’s a “volume scorer” element to Barrett’s game that needs to evolve in order to be a part of the next good Knicks team. Which it may….
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
25,078
I’d disagree on pretty much all of this. For the Porter Jr. comps (both of them) those aren’t terrible comps in terms of career trajectory.
View attachment 54822
The problem for the Knicks is (1) getting Otto Porter Jr. on a near max is a bad outcome; and (2) both Porter Jr.’s had progressed to a significantly higher level of actual performance before they signed big money deals.
View attachment 54825
Barrett isn’t a guy you lock up early on a near max, he’s a guy you let go into RFA. The worst thing, if you want to keep him, is that he gets someone to commit an actual max contract and you match for not too much more. The discount here just isn’t close to big enough to justify the risk the Knicks are taking on and they also should understand (but don’t) that they aren’t in a roster building phase where overpaying to lock up good players makes sense (assuming RJ Barrett profiles to develop into a good player, which is a fair assumption). In other words, they aren’t Denver.

The Knicks could get lucky here, but I wouldn’t count on it. Plus, it’s the Knicks so they deserve no benefit of the doubt in terms of scouting/projection. They are a mediocre team largely locked into continuing to be mediocre.
Analytics alone are an unreliable way to evaluate a very young player for sure and of limited value for a player on a dysfunctional team. When you combine a young player who rose above dysfunction on a losing team it’s worth that grain of salt imo. You can twist them to fit any narrative……even In using an Otto Porter outcome as a comp after his career trajectory was halted due to injuries 5 years ago.

Unless he succumbs to the same injury bug the comments about his upside, skill and physical, would require his growth as a player to pretty much stop today. I wouldn’t necesssarily want him for $30m but as was said upthread if you aren’t extending the 21-yr old you drafted, who still has physical upside, who has already developed a very good NBA skill what are you doing?
 
Last edited:

ElUno20

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
5,166
I'm rooting for him, too; and I noted your key point about the difference in mindset between him and Westbrook ("Westbrook seems less likely than Wall to accept the secondary role that his flawed/diminished game dictates"). I'm just dubious that the time off will give him efficiency, rebounding, or ball control skills he lacked before his most recent injury; and I worry about how his speed-based game will age. But who knows, maybe there's something to the glowing reviews El Uno says he's been getting this offseason.

As far as the Clips in general, I'm more sanguine than Euclis, but am naturally (mildly) annoyed at ESPN's recent anointing of them as the overwhelming WC favorite:

West Champs
LA Clippers: 8
Phoenix Suns: 3
Golden State Warriors: 3
Denver Nuggets: 1

Then again, Steph and the Warriors are always on the lookout for signs of disrespect, so ... good.
That espn poll is nuts. Wow. I'm legitimately taken a back.

On the wall/speed thing, his role and what he's going to be asked to do is so completely different than the wall we know. The clipps under Lue dont play very fast so that'll be an adjustment for sure
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
38,672
given where Knicks are in cycle, and the critical importance of not losing him as you noted, I don’t hate the deal. But it’s a lot of money for him—-he’s not yet the player Marcus Smart is and he’s paid nearly 50% more the next four years. You get some upside, scoring gets paid more than defense, cap going up etc. but there’s reason to wonder if it’s a good contract too.

as you noted, Knicks choices are limited so I get it. But there’s a “volume scorer” element to Barrett’s game that needs to evolve in order to be a part of the next good Knicks team. Which it may….
Aside from the fact that the Knicks don't have many great alternatives, how often do any of these contracts actually hurt a team? I am struggling to think of deals like this from the recent or even not so recent past that were deemed as "overpays" and actually really cost more than assets to make go away.

It strikes me that if the skew to league economics is typically to the upside in terms of cap structure and, by definition salaries, that teams can manage around mistakes fairly easily. Furthermore, a bet on a player like Barrett to improve isn't crazy, especially if the coaching staff likes his development etc.
 
Last edited:

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
9,243
Toscana via Kyiv
Good point. Twitter saying approximately 4/$110M with $10M in bonuses. To me, this sounds like a reasonable contract but what do I know?
People seem to be having a hard time with sticker shock under the higher cap. I'm not a huge Barrett fan or anything, but this is wayyy below max money.

Ja is getting 4 / 148 for the first 4 years of his new deal, if he doesn't make All-NBA. 37M/year.

If the Knicks had to match a Barrett max next summer, it would be about 40M/year.

RJ is getting 27.5M/year unless he hits bonuses that would make his contract a bargain.

27.5 < 40 (or 37).
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
5,179
Imaginationland
People seem to be having a hard time with sticker shock under the higher cap. I'm not a huge Barrett fan or anything, but this is wayyy below max money.

Ja is getting 4 / 148 for the first 4 years of his new deal, if he doesn't make All-NBA. 37M/year.

If the Knicks had to match a Barrett max next summer, it would be about 40M/year.

RJ is getting 27.5M/year unless he hits bonuses that would make his contract a bargain.

27.5 < 40 (or 37).
Yeah this is pretty nice for the Knicks. Compare it to Jaylen, another 3rd overall pick who got basically the same amount (4/106) at the same point in his career despite the lower cap and arguably proving less as a player (he had taken a solid step back the previous season). It's the Knicks so it's always fun to laugh, but this is perfectly fine.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
9,243
Toscana via Kyiv
Yeah this is pretty nice for the Knicks. Compare it to Jaylen, another 3rd overall pick who got basically the same amount (4/106) at the same point in his career despite the lower cap and arguably proving less as a player (he had taken a solid step back the previous season). It's the Knicks so it's always fun to laugh, but this is perfectly fine.
Yeah, agree. I think Jaylen had proven a lot more as a player in the 2018 run (but I weight the playoffs highly), but that contract was fairly controversial here, and it was more expensive relative to the cap than this one.

Locking up young scorer types in RFA for ~30% less than their max would be the next year ends up looking good more than people expect.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,332
NYC
Warriors fans who were hoping for a hometown discount on Poole — who just put up .654 TS in a 22-game playoff run, led the league in FT%, and could step right in and be the #1 offensive creator for a team like Orlando — can put those hopes away in light of the Barrett contract. Next summer’s gonna be interesting in Dubland, with Poole’s and Wiggs’ free agency, Dray’s player option, and a decision to be made on the future of Wiseman.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
7,989
around the way
Yeah this is pretty nice for the Knicks. Compare it to Jaylen, another 3rd overall pick who got basically the same amount (4/106) at the same point in his career despite the lower cap and arguably proving less as a player (he had taken a solid step back the previous season). It's the Knicks so it's always fun to laugh, but this is perfectly fine.
I was ready to respond to your bolded with a "what?", but I looked it up first. And lovegtm's post below points out that JB proved some things in the playoffs that RJ hasn't yet, but what you wrote is not crazy.

54850


Yeah, agree. I think Jaylen had proven a lot more as a player in the 2018 run (but I weight the playoffs highly), but that contract was fairly controversial here, and it was more expensive relative to the cap than this one.

Locking up young scorer types in RFA for ~30% less than their max would be the next year ends up looking good more than people expect.
Some of the underinformed commentary about RJs price tag hadn't considered that he's actually not maxed here. Even the 30MM "with incentives" is not a max. Deal looks better in that context.

And by "some of the underinformed commentary", I mean mine.
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
5,768
I saw a video of Wall in a game with a bunch of NBA players including Leonard and Wall looked to be in excellent shape. If he can’t play rotation level ball anymore, it will cost the Clippers only $6.7m. The Clips will need a lot of things to go health wise this season to be a real contender
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
28,173
People seem to be having a hard time with sticker shock under the higher cap. I'm not a huge Barrett fan or anything, but this is wayyy below max money.

Ja is getting 4 / 148 for the first 4 years of his new deal, if he doesn't make All-NBA. 37M/year.

If the Knicks had to match a Barrett max next summer, it would be about 40M/year.

RJ is getting 27.5M/year unless he hits bonuses that would make his contract a bargain.

27.5 < 40 (or 37).
Do you think you can spend $10 mil on a FA to make up the massive difference between Ja and RJ performance-wise? Because I think that’s exceptionally unlikely. If anything, the Ja max deal only emphasizes that Barrett is being paid well ahead of production. Which is ok given where Knicks are,
 

The Social Chair

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 17, 2010
4,954
I pay far less for MLB, NBA, and NHL combined than I do for NFL alone. Sigh. I agree it's a strong move though. Anyone who pirates these games is basically an asshole for that price.
My wife was in grad school the last couple of years so I was able to get Sunday Ticket for $120/yr. Hoping it auto-renews this year.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
9,243
Toscana via Kyiv
Do you think you can spend $10 mil on a FA to make up the massive difference between Ja and RJ performance-wise? Because I think that’s exceptionally unlikely. If anything, the Ja max deal only emphasizes that Barrett is being paid well ahead of production. Which is ok given where Knicks are,
Of course you can't bridge that gap for $10M, but that's a function of Ja being really good, not of whether paying RJ Barrett 22% of the gap for this age is good.

You can basically never bridge the gap between true max guys and others just with money, which is why so much of NBA team-building is about doing complicated contortions to get your hands on those true max guys in other ways.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
9,243
Toscana via Kyiv
I was ready to respond to your bolded with a "what?", but I looked it up first. And lovegtm's post below points out that JB proved some things in the playoffs that RJ hasn't yet, but what you wrote is not crazy.

View attachment 54850




Some of the underinformed commentary about RJs price tag hadn't considered that he's actually not maxed here. Even the 30MM "with incentives" is not a max. Deal looks better in that context.

And by "some of the underinformed commentary", I mean mine.
Thanks for the mea culpa.

Barrett's deal feels a lot like Jaylen's in one other important way:

It's not hard to see how he quickly becomes a decent starter, which would make him a neutral asset. He's not going to get worse. And if he *does* make a leap (as Jaylen did), it immediately enters "best contracts in the NBA" discussion.

Honestly the more I think about this, the more 4/$107M seems like a complete no-brainer given the rising cap and RJ's age.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,500
He’s a volume scorer that doesn’t really bring anything else to the table. His eFG%+ is bad and his TS%+ is risible and getting worse. Literally any defensive sequence that ends in RJ Barrett trying to score can be considered a good result. He combines all that with terrible D. He can get a lot worse (and probably will).

The entire point of guys like Barrett is foisting them off on other teams in order to get guys like Mitchell. Even if you’re dealing him to a third team for picks to sweeten the pot.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
7,989
around the way
This is much more talk about RJ Barrett than I ever expected to see here, but the issues surrounding him are interesting. Comps so far of Brown and Smart are farther away from what kind of player this is as of today (inefficient volume scorer who plays no defense). Here's a better comp.

548955489654897

I was not a fan of Booker his first couple of years. His efficiency was junk, although not as bad as Barrett, and his defense was atrocious.

His defense is still pretty damn bad, but it's not as terrible as it once was. And perhaps more importantly, his efficiency (not just TS% but also ass% and tov%) and impact numbers are so damn good, his lack of defense is pretty well offset.

Basically the bet on Barrett is that his growth as an offensive player will continue and that he'll become a more efficient guy and that maybe he'll play defense someday. I wouldn't put money down on the latter, but ymmv. Either way, there is precedent.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
9,243
Toscana via Kyiv
This is much more talk about RJ Barrett than I ever expected to see here, but the issues surrounding him are interesting. Comps so far of Brown and Smart are farther away from what kind of player this is as of today (inefficient volume scorer who plays no defense). Here's a better comp.

View attachment 54895View attachment 54896View attachment 54897

I was not a fan of Booker his first couple of years. His efficiency was junk, although not as bad as Barrett, and his defense was atrocious.

His defense is still pretty damn bad, but it's not as terrible as it once was. And perhaps more importantly, his efficiency (not just TS% but also ass% and tov%) and impact numbers are so damn good, his lack of defense is pretty well offset.

Basically the bet on Barrett is that his growth as an offensive player will continue and that he'll become a more efficient guy and that maybe he'll play defense someday. I wouldn't put money down on the latter, but ymmv. Either way, there is precedent.
I'd usually put money on guys with decent tools (RJ's are better than Booker's) becoming decent defenders in the right situation.

RJ's O-DPM graph is one you pay starter (but well below max) money for age 22-26 years for any day of the week imo.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
11,866
Of course you can't bridge that gap for $10M, but that's a function of Ja being really good, not of whether paying RJ Barrett 22% of the gap for this age is good.

You can basically never bridge the gap between true max guys and others just with money, which is why so much of NBA team-building is about doing complicated contortions to get your hands on those true max guys in other ways.
Just to echo, the top 10-15 guys are way underpaid on the max deals, as hard as that is to believe given the current numbers.

So you can never look at those contracts and say player X is 50% worse and therefore should get 50% of the money of one of those guys.

The top contracts are artificially depressed a variety of reasons, one (in theory) is to force “overpay” the lower and middle classes.

This highlights the need for teams to get those “true max” guys like Tatum on a relative underpay to build a championship roster.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
28,173
I’m not sure anyone is arguing anything differently on maxes at this point—-lovegtm brought up Ja’s salary as a way to explain Barrett’s and several of us have noted why “% of max guy salary” comparisons don’t make sense in the NBA. If Barrett’s contract it is worth it, it is because his salary slot is part of getting a true max guy, or because you believe he helps you be the mid-40s win team that might attract a max FA and will not prevent that cap-wise (questionable), or because you believe he can mature into a true $30 mil a year guy in the future.

I’m skeptical on all three, but there’s non-ridiculous ‘outs’ on each (at least two of three) and given where Knicks are I get it. But it’s not close to a no-brainer given his actual play on the court thus far, imo. The potential ”harm” to the deal is that it locks in a lot of money ($80 mil or so annually for next 4 years) to three ball-dominant low-defense guys (Randle, Brunson, Barrett) plus another $18 to Fournier for next three. Now, those other guys are ”sunk costs” and you shouldn’t let Barrett go just because you made other bad decisions, but part of the challenge they have is the lack of two-way guys who move the ball. All that said, Brunson is a useful addition, and Barrett may work out….it is tough to do what Knicks are trying to and I don’t hate the gamble.
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
6,433
CA

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
5,768
I haven’t seen anything in here on the Celtics reported interest in Carmelo Anthony. It has been picked up by NBC and Yahoo now, so it feels pretty viable. I think it would be great — perfect 8th-9th guy on the bench who could come in and give some offensive punch when needed. His wine knowledge would also be great to have in Boston. . . .

https://nba.nbcsports.com/2022/08/31/celtics-rumored-to-have-interest-in-carmelo-anthony-with-gallinari-out/
If Carmelo Anthony wants to win a ring, he should sign with the Celtics, even if he is not guaranteed playing time in the playoffs. If his defense doesn’t hurt the second unit that badly, he could provide some nice punch off the bench. He had his most efficient scoring year last season on the dysfunctional Lakers, .544 eFG%, averaging a point every two minutes, something no bench player did last season, in 26 mpg.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
25,078
I was not a fan of Booker his first couple of years. His efficiency was junk, although not as bad as Barrett, and his defense was atrocious.

His defense is still pretty damn bad, but it's not as terrible as it once was. And perhaps more importantly, his efficiency (not just TS% but also ass% and tov%) and impact numbers are so damn good, his lack of defense is pretty well offset.

Basically the bet on Barrett is that his growth as an offensive player will continue and that he'll become a more efficient guy and that maybe he'll play defense someday. I wouldn't put money down on the latter, but ymmv. Either way, there is precedent.
I’ll go back to my point about young players in dysfunctional situations as Booker is one of many examples. It’s a Jedi mind trick what people are watching with their eyes and what data is reading with the numbers. A large part of the evaluation process is to recognize that a 21-yr old learning to play on a me-first losing team is going to have inefficient numbers offensively and go through the motions defensively as that is the typical culture of a lottery team. Why is anyone surprised that this player isn’t efficient in a selfish environment? What is anyone surprised he’s not going all Marcus Smart when his team is down 20 and everyone else is coasting?
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
42,473
If Carmelo Anthony wants to win a ring, he should sign with the Celtics, even if he is not guaranteed playing time in the playoffs. If his defense doesn’t hurt the second unit that badly, he could provide some nice punch off the bench. He had his most efficient scoring year last season on the dysfunctional Lakers, .544 eFG%, averaging a point every two minutes, something no bench player did last season, in 26 mpg.
Yeah. He’s shot well from 3 last 3 years. Would be a nice depth addition to this team.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
9,243
Toscana via Kyiv
I’m not sure anyone is arguing anything differently on maxes at this point—-lovegtm brought up Ja’s salary as a way to explain Barrett’s and several of us have noted why “% of max guy salary” comparisons don’t make sense in the NBA. If Barrett’s contract it is worth it, it is because his salary slot is part of getting a true max guy, or because you believe he helps you be the mid-40s win team that might attract a max FA and will not prevent that cap-wise (questionable), or because you believe he can mature into a true $30 mil a year guy in the future.

I’m skeptical on all three, but there’s non-ridiculous ‘outs’ on each (at least two of three) and given where Knicks are I get it. But it’s not close to a no-brainer given his actual play on the court thus far, imo. The potential ”harm” to the deal is that it locks in a lot of money ($80 mil or so annually for next 4 years) to three ball-dominant low-defense guys (Randle, Brunson, Barrett) plus another $18 to Fournier for next three. Now, those other guys are ”sunk costs” and you shouldn’t let Barrett go just because you made other bad decisions, but part of the challenge they have is the lack of two-way guys who move the ball. All that said, Brunson is a useful addition, and Barrett may work out….it is tough to do what Knicks are trying to and I don’t hate the gamble.
I was only bringing up Ja because people were saying Barrett's contract was "near max", and I was using the numbers of an actual max to show that it was not, in fact, particularly near max.

Apologies if that was not clear.
 

Tony C

Dope
Dope
Apr 13, 2000
13,193
I’ll go back to my point about young players in dysfunctional situations as Booker is one of many examples. It’s a Jedi mind trick what people are watching with their eyes and what data is reading with the numbers. A large part of the evaluation process is to recognize that a 21-yr old learning to play on a me-first losing team is going to have inefficient numbers offensively and go through the motions defensively as that is the typical culture of a lottery team. Why is anyone surprised that this player isn’t efficient in a selfish environment? What is anyone surprised he’s not going all Marcus Smart when his team is down 20 and everyone else is coasting?
I mean, yes. Breaking down the analytic numbers of a guy as young as RJ is silly. Scouting still has a say here and this contract looks like a very solid deal based not on what RJ has been, rather (and appropriately) on what he likely will be.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
15,335
Santa Monica
I haven’t seen anything in here on the Celtics reported interest in Carmelo Anthony. It has been picked up by NBC and Yahoo now, so it feels pretty viable. I think it would be great — perfect 8th-9th guy on the bench who could come in and give some offensive punch when needed. His wine knowledge would also be great to have in Boston. . . .

https://nba.nbcsports.com/2022/08/31/celtics-rumored-to-have-interest-in-carmelo-anthony-with-gallinari-out/
Cuse grad here, and I'm completely indebted to Melo.

BUT I have absolutely zero interest in him joining the C's.
I can't imagine a 38yr old Carmelo guarding.... anybody. I'd rather see if PP or Hauser can fill those early season minutes until Gallo is ready to go.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
25,078
Cuse grad here, and I'm completely indebted to Melo.

BUT I have absolutely zero interest in him joining the C's.
I can't imagine a 38yr old Carmelo guarding.... anybody. I'd rather see if PP or Hauser can fill those early season minutes until Gallo is ready to go.
The Udonis Haslem role?

/ducking
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
7,989
around the way
I'd love Melo for the 82. Yeah he doesn't guard, but bench scoring that isn't under 6'3" would be nice. There will be weeks that guys are dinged up, have the flu/covid, etc. Sure we can give those minutes to PP or Hauser.