Offseason Thread - Betty when you call me, you can call me Al

The Social Chair

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 17, 2010
2,728
New Knick Marcus Morris and his agent Rich Paul have agreed to part ways, sources told the Daily News. The contentious separation comes after a controversial free agency in which Morris, 29, signed a one-year, $15 million deal with the Knicks because he reneged on an agreement with the Spurs for two years, $20 million.
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
35,374
It would get the Wizards to answer the phone but without including high draft picks to the package I don't see how it would be nearly enough to land Beal.
Because if he refuses to sign extension that the Wizards can offer him in 2 weeks, it's a de facto trade request and the Wizards won't want to lose him for nothing.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
2,240
Saint Paul, MN
Because if he refuses to sign extension that the Wizards can offer him in 2 weeks, it's a de facto trade request and the Wizards won't want to lose him for nothing.
He is signed through next season though. So while it may be wise to get more for him by moving him this year, they still do have some time to make a move should they choose
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
21,721
The data doesn't support it.
Data from when, though? The primary reasons it is better are:

1) Kemba is healthy and Wall is not (and we don't really know degree to which he'll ever be his old self)
2) Porter does not appear to have any material upside, while Tatum certainly does

So, data from (say) the past year pre-Wall injury may show little difference...and it still is likely the case there's a pretty big difference looking forward, or at least a chance there is a pretty big difference.
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
35,374
He is signed through next season though. So while it may be wise to get more for him by moving him this year, they still do have some time to make a move should they choose
After the AD stuff, I wonder if teams will move sooner. You could also conceivable get more by trading him sooner.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,929
around the way
After the AD stuff, I wonder if teams will move sooner. You could also conceivable get more by trading him sooner.
I suppose that it can't hurt to try to get more, and you probably generally do get more with more service time remaining under contract. But the AD return was glorious in and of itself.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,548
Kiev, Ukraine
I suppose that it can't hurt to try to get more, and you probably generally do get more with more service time remaining under contract. But the AD return was glorious in and of itself.
Yeah I think George and Westbrook showed that there’s value in moving the guy proactively. Although Washington has zero path to contention before his contract is up, so I imagine everyone in the league is treating him as available regardless of what he and the team say.

Excited to see which GM will be next to trade all his picks through 2026.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
21,721
Agreed, that is nugget that jumped out for me as well.

So that tees up the question: what was the advice from Paul around turning it down, and why?
 

benhogan

Baynes Hogan (pending trade)
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
6,636
Santa Monica
Yeah I think George and Westbrook showed that there’s value in moving the guy proactively. Although Washington has zero path to contention before his contract is up, so I imagine everyone in the league is treating him as available regardless of what he and the team say.

Excited to see which GM will be next to trade all his picks through 2026.
agreed. Washington wasn't going anywhere with Beal and Wall anyways. Why wait for John Wall return when we've seen that dynamic duo? They now suck with Beal, they'll suck without him, might as well add future assets and save a few $$$ in the process.

I pity the team that offers a haul of picks through 2026 and good young players for Bradley Beal. Danny isn't picking up the phone on that request.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,548
Kiev, Ukraine
He didn't want him on LAC competing with his meal tickets on the Lakers?
Yeah, I think there will turn out to be more to this story. You don’t tell a guy like Mook to turn down 3/41 unless another team is telling you already have something.

Unless, of course, you’re Rich Paul and you have a massive conflict of interest.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
8,221
or maybe the 3/41 was conditional on Kawhi not coming there. Much like how Danny Green joined the Lakers.
 

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
3,942
or maybe the 3/41 was conditional on Kawhi not coming there. Much like how Danny Green joined the Lakers.
The reporting is that they could still fit Kawhi/George with Morris, and they moved on to adding Harkless once Morris turned them down, so it doesn’t really seem like it was a plan B to the Kawhi addition.
If the Clippers offered Morris a three-year deal, it would have started at just over $13 million, which would have still allowed the Kawhi Leonard and Paul George moves. According to Bondy, the Clippers turned to Moe Harkless after Morris rejected them.
(Note that article was from before the NYDN confirmed 3 years).
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
1,923
If Klutch is going to be building the roster of one franchise, they're going to have an obvious conflict of interest. I don't ever see the NBA standing up to LeBron, so they'll have to put up with it for another half decade.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
3,247
New York City
Bronny James better have all-NBA talent because the Klutch model doesn't seem sustainable.
Yeah, unless you have a burning desire to play with LeBron on the Lakers, as Davis obviously and publicly did, why would you ever want to hire Klutch? The evidence seems pretty persuasive at this point that their primary goal is not "get the best deal for my client wherever that may be" but instead "how can I use this player to help LeBron or harm his direct competitors."
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
9,796
Somewhere
Yeah, unless you have a burning desire to play with LeBron on the Lakers, as Davis obviously and publicly did, why would you ever want to hire Klutch? The evidence seems pretty persuasive at this point that their primary goal is not "get the best deal for my client wherever that may be" but instead "how can I use this player to help LeBron or harm his direct competitors."
Yep. I think the market will "work itself out" on this one, to be honest.

Sucks for Mook though.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,803
Data from when, though? The primary reasons it is better are:

1) Kemba is healthy and Wall is not (and we don't really know degree to which he'll ever be his old self)
2) Porter does not appear to have any material upside, while Tatum certainly does

So, data from (say) the past year pre-Wall injury may show little difference...and it still is likely the case there's a pretty big difference looking forward, or at least a chance there is a pretty big difference.
Let me clarify because your points are correct - we don't know what Wall's future will look like and it is reasonable to expect that Tatum will improve while Porter is what he is.

That said, on the first point, peak Wall was pretty close to peak Kemba in terms of production depending on the metrics you use. I suspect I am not alone in saying that Walker has been and more than likely will be the better player. However throwing out last season, their careers are closer than you might think.

On the second point, Porter has been in the top "SFs" in RPM for the past ~ four years and was in the top five the two seasons prior to last year - he is actually a pretty decent player who you can argue hasn't been in a great situation his entire career. Tatum likely has more upside but from a production standpoint, he isn't at Porter's level yet.

Finally, I think that many NBA watchers understand that top talent is the holy grail - it makes sense for teams to trade good rotation pieces and picks for players like this when they have the opportunity. The problem, once again, with Beal is very good, I would argue that he isn't at the level where its clear that trading away depth/talent diversity as well as assets makes sense. As I noted upthread, if you trade Smart plus Brown/TL+ for him, that's a lot of value for a guy who RPM grades as inferior to Smart for last year and roughly around the same in the year prior.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,947
The interesting new info here is that he turned down 3/41 from the Clippers before agreeing with the Spurs to begin with, very odd offseason for MaMo.
We’ll probably never get the entire scoop but I wonder how much of this was MaMo passing on $41m in a vacuum vs how much was MaMo turning down $41m due to Paul convincing him that a better offer was coming from the Lakers because they weren’t going to get a Davis deal done.

Of course the big ugly stench here is that Paul didn’t have the best interest of his client(s) in mind (include Nerlens as well) instead placing LeBron ahead of the both of them. It sounds like Bron let Paul know to avoid these two signing elsewhere since they may be needed in LA. Nothing but speculation but these dots sure do seem to all connect including the players in question dropping Paul like a bad habit once they realized they were used as LeBron’s pawns. This is such a bad look.


Edit: I didn’t read through entire thread prior to posting. I see I’m not the only one to recognize this massive conflict.
 
Last edited:

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,947
Yeah, unless you have a burning desire to play with LeBron on the Lakers, as Davis obviously and publicly did, why would you ever want to hire Klutch? The evidence seems pretty persuasive at this point that their primary goal is not "get the best deal for my client wherever that may be" but instead "how can I use this player to help LeBron or harm his direct competitors."
Let’s ask Tristan Thompson, Jr Smith, and Kentavious Caldwell-Pope maybe they can help answer.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,548
Kiev, Ukraine
We’ll probably never get the entire scoop but I wonder how much of this was MaMo passing on $41m in a vacuum vs how much was MaMo turning down $41m due to Paul convincing him that a better offer was coming from the Lakers because they weren’t going to get a Davis deal done.

Of course the big ugly stench here is that Paul didn’t have the best interest of his client(s) in mind (include Nerlens as well) instead placing LeBron ahead of the both of them. It sounds like Bron let Paul know to avoid these two signing elsewhere since they may be needed in LA. Nothing but speculation but these dots sure do seem to all connect including the players in question dropping Paul like a bad habit once they realized they were used as LeBron’s pawns. This is such a bad look.


Edit: I didn’t read through entire thread prior to posting. I see I’m not the only one to recognize this massive conflict.
The bolded is my thought as well. Is there any malpractice standard for agents? I honestly feel awful for Mook, who was looking at the big payday of his career.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
9,863
I saw KOC this morning in an article mention that SuperMax contracts are almost immediately hailed as an albatross by fans and members of the media; and I know we spend a lot of time talking about Wall, or Wesbrook's contract. So I just took a look at every NBA player scheduled to make $30 million or more next season and look at their contracts. (Note that some of these are not exactly SuperMax deals, but they are all players who are the highest paid per year players for next season. I also assumed that everyone with a player option would opt into it in the future).

Steph Curry - 3 years, $128 million left - A

Curry will be highest paid player in the NBA next season, as well as next season. Still, he is definitely worth it, and you could argue that even if he tears his Achilles next year and never plays another game, the price for a Warriors dynasty was worth it.

Chis Paul - 3 years, $123 million - D

Paul's contract was immediately ridiculed by a lot of people the day he signed last year; given his injury history and the feeling that his decline had already begun. While still probably an All-Star while healthy, Paul's contract could probably only be traded for another monster contract in return, which is what happened this summer.

Russell Westbrook - 4 years, $168 million - C-

Westbrook's contract hinges on how a player so athletically gifted ages. Right now I would argue that he is worth the massive contract, but with four more seasons left to go it is hard to imagine that mid-30s Westbrook is going to be worth the $47 million that he is going to make during his final season. If he changes the way he plays a bit he could still be a very good player by the end of the deal, but a lot people don't believe he will ever be able to do that.

James Harden - 4 years, $168 million - A-

Harden has nearly the same deal as Westbrook, but a lot less question marks. He is a better player than Westbrook and doesn't rely on athleticism nearly as much, and also has a cleaner injury. Old man Harden may not be worth $48 million a year, but over the next couple of seasons he should be an MVP-level player, so you should be willing to take the hit if he falls off a cliff near the end.

John Wall - 4 years, $168 million - F

Wall has the exact same deal as Harden, but is a far worse player, coming off a terrible injury. This is universally agreed upon as being the worst contract in the NBA, and is a warning label for all franchises considering offering the SuperMax.

Lebron James - 3 years, $120 million - A-

At the end of the day you pay the money to get LeBron, even if he gets older or seriously injured, it was still worth the risk because his ceiling is so high with him on your team.

Blake Griffin - 3 years, $108 million - C

I don't think this deal is as bad as it was made out to be, especially after the Clippers immediately had buyers remorse and sold him to Detroit. There are only three years left on the deal and Blake is coming off perhaps his finest season. More importantly, he has nobly changed his game, building it less around athleticism and more around outside shooting, passing and strength, things that should stick with him during his age 30, 31 and 32 seasons.

Kyle Lowry - 1 year, $33 million - A

With only one year left on the deal, you have to say it was a big success for Toronto; Lowry has played well in every season so far and played a key role in last year's title winning squad. Yeah from an approximate value standpoint he was probably overpaid during that time period, but with some hindsight I don't think anyone is regretting that contract.

Paul George - 3 years, $105 million - A-

George signed the big deal last off-season with OKC, but was traded this off-season to LAC. That deal had to be more to do with OKC wanting to rebuild and get a ton of assets in return, because they couldn't possibly have been disappointed in George's play last year. Barring injury of course, the contract seems like it will be a good value.

Gordon Hayward - 2 years, $66 million - D

Hayward hurt himself during his Celtics debut, missed all of the first year of his deal and spent the entire second year of his deal working back into shape. It is unclear how good Hayward is going to be for the Celtics, but two out of the four seasons on his deal have already been lost. That being said, there are only two years left on the deal so it isn't quite as bad as the Wall contract.

Mike Conley - 2 years, $66 million - B

Conley has two years left on a 5 year deal he signed back in 2016. Memphis failed to remain competitive during the duration of his contract, but Conley has still been a very good player during that time. This is similar to the Lowry deal only Conley didn't have Lowry's good fortune of playing with a better team.

Paul Millsap - 1 year, $30 million - C-

This is a different type of deal because it was a short-term deal for max money. Millsap got hurt during year one but played healthy in year two, he has been a solid starter for Denver but not an All-Star. Given the length of the deal it wasn't that big of a disaster.

There are also some guys who have longer contracts that will be making $30 million+ per year in the future: Lillard, Wiggins, Embiid, Jokic, Love, Towns, and Booker. I think most people would agree that Love and Wiggins are bad deals, but that so far Lillard (massive extension coming later), Jokic, Embiid, Towns and Booker have all been reasonable contracts so far.

So out of those 19 contracts, I would say that 12 of them have been solid deals, 3 have been a mixed bag, and 4 have been bad contracts. Now the bad contracts can really cripple a franchise, but I don't think the SuperMax is as dangerous or risky as some people have made it out to be. There have been plenty of solid results when the right player is found.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
2,240
Saint Paul, MN
Is Morris really going to be out any money though? He only needs to sign a 2/26 deal next offseason which seems likley especially if he is putting up some empty numbers on a terrible Knick team
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,277
Let’s ask Tristan Thompson, Jr Smith, and Kentavious Caldwell-Pope maybe they can help answer.
And Eric Bledsoe, Ben Simmons, Jordan Clarkson, John Wall, Draymond Green and Darius Garland. The Morris twins and Nerlens Noel are the outliers. The rest of Paul's clients have generally done very well for themselves. These guys care about money and playing for the best teams and Paul usually succeeds in obtaining both for his clients. You can dislike him all you want but I don't see any evidence that he's done a poor job representing his clients.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
262
Let’s ask Tristan Thompson, Jr Smith, and Kentavious Caldwell-Pope maybe they can help answer.
KCP is an interesting example. It was reported that he turned down 5 for 80. He then found a relatively barren market until the Lakers came to the rescue it was what a clear effort to curry favor with Camp Lebron. Even with the Lakers largesse, he still stands to lose alot of money based on Paul's advice. Nerlens is another cautionary tale.

Should not come as a complete surprise. The skill set one needs to be a power broker, maneuvering chess pieces around your top 5 player, are not the same as finding good situations and contracts for players whose skills are far more fungible. Every free agency there a few guys who are left with no market when the game of musical chairs stops and a few guys who end up with seemingly above market deals. Surely some of the later comes down to stupid GMs/teams, but some of the credit also has to go to agents who really earning their money like Bartelstein.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,929
around the way
Yeah, I think there will turn out to be more to this story. You don’t tell a guy like Mook to turn down 3/41 unless another team is telling you already have something.

Unless, of course, you’re Rich Paul and you have a massive conflict of interest.
Hence the firing, I'd imagine. Mook should sue the prick.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
262
And Eric Bledsoe, Ben Simmons, Jordan Clarkson, John Wall, Draymond Green and Darius Garland. The Morris twins and Nerlens Noel are the outliers. The rest of Paul's clients have generally done very well for themselves. These guys care about money and playing for the best teams and Paul usually succeeds in obtaining both for his clients. You can dislike him all you want but I don't see any evidence that he's done a poor job representing his clients.
Interesting group of players you have identified.

I don't give a lot of credit to the agent advising his client to say yes, when the franchise that drafted him number overall offers him the most possible money they can. So with Simmons and Wall off the board, that leaves Bledsoe, Clarkson, Green and Garland.

Garland was just drafted and is on a rookie scale deal. No way to know if Paul will help, hinder or be a replacement level agent with respect to Garland.

Clarkson signed his overmarket deal with the Lakers before he hired Paul. His free agency will be a good test of Paul's abilities when he does not have the gravity of Lebron to warp the market. Green will be interesting. He is really the only guy on the market next summer. With KD gone, one has to imagine GSW will be motivated to keep him. And the Draymond who showed up in the playoffs will definitely have suitors. The market for regular season, heavy Draymond is likely to be more tepid. I would bet on a hell of a contract year push.

Bledsoe is a clear win for Paul. He played hardball and got his guy a great deal with Phoenix. He also got him out of Phoenix and took a good situation with the Bucks.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,548
Kiev, Ukraine
Is Morris really going to be out any money though? He only needs to sign a 2/26 deal next offseason which seems likley especially if he is putting up some empty numbers on a terrible Knick team
The problem is that if he shows any decline, a guy like him is looking at a $3-4M/yr contract. The 2/26 (or a bit more) is quite possible, but it’s one of the better outcomes for him now, rather than being locked in.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,229
Trade Machine says it works without Semi and TL. It may not be 100% though...
I don't use the trade machine, but by my math the Celtics would have to send out around 21.6M to match up with Beal.

Only way they can get there right now without Hayward or Tatum involved is all four of Smart/Brown/Semi/R. Williams
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
3,203
The problem is that if he shows any decline, a guy like him is looking at a $3-4M/yr contract. The 2/26 (or a bit more) is quite possible, but it’s one of the better outcomes for him now, rather than being locked in.
Yeah, quite a few players in the NBA end up with MLEs or fairly low contracts. Somebody like Morris could end up making $5 million/year and have to play for 5 years to make up the money he could have had for 2. On the other hand, maybe he'll get lucky and put up the numbers and some greater fool will give him a big payday.

Remember, MaMo has a fairly high opinion of his abilities (as I'm sure >90% of NBA players do). I wouldn't put this all on Klutch (absent other evidence). Heck if Terry Rozier is getting the money he got, it wouldn't surprise me if MaMo was thinking he should be getting similar or more than that.
 

Soxfan in Fla

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2001
7,081
Yeah, quite a few players in the NBA end up with MLEs or fairly low contracts. Somebody like Morris could end up making $5 million/year and have to play for 5 years to make up the money he could have had for 2. On the other hand, maybe he'll get lucky and put up the numbers and some greater fool will give him a big payday.

Remember, MaMo has a fairly high opinion of his abilities (as I'm sure >90% of NBA players do). I wouldn't put this all on Klutch (absent other evidence). Heck if Terry Rozier is getting the money he got, it wouldn't surprise me if MaMo was thinking he should be getting similar or more than that.
I’d agree more with that take if Nerlens Noel hadn’t also just fired Rich “Conflict of Interest” Paul for similar reasons.
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
453
I don't use the trade machine, but by my math the Celtics would have to send out around 21.6M to match up with Beal.

Only way they can get there right now without Hayward or Tatum involved is all four of Smart/Brown/Semi/R. Williams
They could theoretically extend Brown if all parties were agreeable.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,803
That's not legal.

His salary is locked in for this year.

Any extension would kick in next season.
Your extensive/impressive cap knowledge aside (and thank you for sharing with us), I think its safe to say that the Celtics front-office, whatever one thinks of them, has a decent handle on what they can and cannot do to trade for a Beal or whatever other star player MBPC has set its sights on for a given day.

There is also a very good chance that the people in that function are well aware of what their needs are and have prioritized them accordingly given their constraints. My view is that if I have thought of how nicely Giannis or Kawhi might slot into the Celtics roster, so too has Ainge/Zarren. The reason they don't make those moves isn't because it hasn't occurred to them - its because they are limited by the cap or there is some other factor having to do with fit etc.
 

benhogan

Baynes Hogan (pending trade)
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
6,636
Santa Monica
The reporting is that they could still fit Kawhi/George with Morris, and they moved on to adding Harkless once Morris turned them down, so it doesn’t really seem like it was a plan B to the Kawhi addition.

(Note that article was from before the NYDN confirmed 3 years).
Harkless is cheaper and a better fit for the Clippers than MaMo. Plus they obtained a protected 2023 1st round pick.

Everything is going the paper Clips way these days, Jerry West can do no wrong.
 
Last edited:

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,947
Harkless is cheaper and a better fit for the Clippers than MaMo. Plus they obtained a protected 2023 1st round pick.

Everything is going the paper Clips way these days, Jerry West can do no wrong.
Yeah, Harkless is an ideal fit with that roster and has a coach who knows how to maximize production out of his role players. I’m going to be up late watching a lot of late night NBA this winter.