Reply With Quote
Do the Spurs trade back?
This post is 87.3% depressing.
Do the Spurs trade back?
Is it here yet??
Honestly it's really complicated to come up with a draft strategy without knowing which way our luck breaks there. I do think the top 3 on my board are Dillingham, Risacher, and Sheppard, with Sheppard #3 but not sure who I'd rank #1 vs #2 and probably won't know that until the combine official measurements for Rob. Leaning Dilly though. If they only get one pick I want one of those three, and if none are available take a wild upside swing on Holland, Topic, Buzelis, or Williams, in that order. If they get two and take one of Dilly or Sheppard with the earlier pick I take that same upside swing on the second pick, but without considering Topic. If they get none of the top 3 on my board and have both picks I take Topic and one of Holland, Buzelis, or Williams. Though I'd probably want to pick Holland first which throws a huge wrench into the strategy if Topic can't be had with the second pick. Also another caveat: if they get #1 and the team with the #2 pick wants Sarr I ask for a future first to swap picks. Might do it for #3 too if Sheppard really impresses at the combine. Ugh what a mess of if statements. And then Buzelis could blow up at the combine and completely change everything
Last edited by baseline bum; 1 Week Ago at 09:57 PM.
I keep saying that's possibly the best situation.
We're gonna be grouching and ing in three years if we are looking at the extension of a top 3 pick in this draft who's only a role-player. We have six lotto picks in the next three years. That money starts stacking up.
We haven't paid much attention to the early second and mid second. Figure that mid second is pretty much gone. I wouldn't be surprised to see the TOR pick traded and the early second used or moved up. Along those lines.
I just don't see the problem. Your extension in Year 5 isn't based on where in the draft you were picked in practice. Even in what seemed like your worst case that you get an Ayton who you don't want but who put up the numbers to get a max contract you max him out and trade him for useful pieces like the Suns did to land Nurkic and Allen.
Exactly what the problem is. You don't want to have to get rid of your players once year 5 approaches. You want them on reasonable contracts. Overpaying for players becomes a major problem. The Ayton situation was horrible for Phoenix. It was a major problem for several seasons and really hampered what they were trying to do. Rest assured that adding more lottery picks for us is going to be a problem if those players don't match their salary slots.
Add to this: Wembanyama is probably the only player in the league who will be worth the supermax.
So you want the Spurs draft picks to disappoint rather than prove they're worth max contracts? You don't want them to find a Jalen Williams with one of their picks? Just because Williams was picked #12 doesn't mean he won't command max. Just because hypothetically Risacher was picked #2 doesn't mean anyone will offer him a max contract when he hits RFA if he has only shown himself to be starting material but not possible Allstar material. And I still want to know what was horrible about paying Ayton and then getting two quality starters for him in trade. Seems like Phoenix made lemonade beautifully with a max player they didn't want. If your guy you don't want is getting max FA offers in RFA he's probably going to have pretty good trade value.
Last edited by baseline bum; 1 Week Ago at 10:26 PM.
While it's absolutely true that the #1 pick, the #5 pick, the #11 pick, and the #29 pick are all eligible for the same rookie extensions, I THINK Mr. Body is trying to make this point, which I very slightly of agree with (but I will provide a few examples that go both ways): That top pick who performs at a decent, but underwhelming level will get a bigger 2nd contract than a later pick who at the same level but is considered an over performer.
One example that runs counter to this and defeats the premise: Markelle Fultz was a #1 pick and got a 3/50 ($16.7MM AAV, starting at 14.68% of the cap). Derrick White was a #29 pick, who's extension with SA was 4/70 ($17.5 AAV, starting at 13.5% of the cap). Both guys got pretty similar deals after putting up pretty similar counting stats. This example could be used to say that players get the extensions they deserve, and their draft position ONLY matters relatively
A different example that supports the premise: DeAndre Hunter (#4 pick) got a 4/90 ($22.5AAV, starting at 14.8% of the cap) extension while putting up relatively similar numbers to #21 pick Brandon Clarke who only got a 4/50 ($12.5 AAV, starting at 9.2% of the cap).
- Hunter has some better counting stats, with a higher career scoring avg, but Clarke has better advanced metrics
- Career 20.4 PER for Clarke, 11.2 for Hunter.
- Clarke has a career 2.8 BMP and has been a positive on Offense and Defense every year of his career,
- whereas Hunter has a career -3.2 BPM and has been a negative on offense and defense every year of his career other than his second year.
I think you could easily argue Clarke is the better and more valuable player.
The Hunter/Clarke is example is one where it is arguable where Hunter's payday was in part due to his pedigree as a top-5 pick, and Clarke's deal was based on being an overperforming late FRP. Clarke of course spent this year injured, but he signed his extension in 2022.
So, there are certainly examples of top picks ending up with oversize extensions, but it is typically the result of teams being stupid and giving them those deals. Orlando was smart, only giving Fultz the extension he deserved, not an extension based on being a former #1 pick.
Just sticking with the 2019 draft, here is the way extensions worked out for the top 8 picks:
1. Zion - max
2. Ja - max
3. RJ Barrett - 4/107 (seems like an appropriate deal I'd put Barrett and Vassell around the same performance level and they got similar deals on an AAV basis, but Barrett's starts at 17.5% of the cap and stays there whereas Vassell's starts at 20.5% of the cap and declines)
4. Hunter - 4/90, overpay
5. Garland - max (this might be an overpay?, but you're kind of forced into a rookie max at Garland's performance level)
6. Jarrett Culver - out of the league
7. Coby White - 3/36, freaking steal of a deal for Chicago. Cannot be overstated how much of a steal this is
8. Jaxson Hayes - 2/5 1+1 deal after Pelicans let him walk
This got me thinking, so I went through and looked at what extensions looked like for Top 4 picks going back to the 2016 draft (Left out 2019 because I addressed it above):
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 1 Simmons - 5/177 (Rookie DPE) Fultz - 3/50 Ayton - 4/132 (Max) Zion - max Ant - 5/204 (Max) 2 Ingram - 5/158 (Max) Ball - 4/80 (S&T) Bagley - 3/38 Ja - max Wiseman - headed to RFA 3 Brown - 4/106 Tatum - 5/163 (Max) Luka - 5/215 (Rookie DPE) Barrett - 4/107 Ball - 5/204 (Max) 4 Bender - No extension Josh Jackson - No extension, 2/10 in FA JJJ - 4/107 Hunter 4/90 PWill - headed to RFA
So looking at the last 5 years of rookie extensions, really the two examples of an overpay based on pedigree is Deandre Hunter and I would also say Ayton. He isn't worth a max, and PHX was stupid to give him one (and this website was not at their best suggesting we offer him one in RFA). It seems like everyone else who isn't a hit (but isn't a complete bust like Bender and Jackson), gets an appropriate deal (Fultz, Ball, Bagley). However, this is a pretty small sample size AND I will note none of those appropriately sized second deals are with the original team!
Also... #4 pick, woof.
In conclusion... I understand the point that I *think* Body is trying to make... but I don't think I agree with it. Players get the second contracts they generally deserve.
I completely disagree that Ayton wasn't worth paying for the Suns. Their choices were to either let him walk to Indiana and lose him for nothing or re-sign him to use as a trade asset. I don't think they could have opened up any significant capspace in scenario #1 because they were paying huge contracts to Booker and CP0 and significant ones to role-players like Jae Crowder and Dario Saric too. Nurkic and Grayson Allen were good pickups for them from the Ayton trade that would have dried up and become nothing. Mr. Body's being wholly unrealistic when he seems to be expecting guys to want to take paycuts vs their market value on a first extension or first free agent deal when they have already been paid below market value on their rookie contracts where even the #1 pick is getting MLE and anyone not top 5 or 6 is making bench scrub money.
We're all free to our own opinions, but in mine Ayton is not worth his contract. Whether the choice was to let him walk or lose him for nothing is irrelevant to the point that he strong-armed the Suns into giving him a max deal. In fact, it kind of makes Mr. Body's point for him - IMO. A former #1 pick used his status as such to get himself a max deal. Indiana was stupid to want to pay him that contract... it's a bad contract. He's essentially putting up Memphis-era Jonas Valanciunas stats (basic and advanced). Jonas turned essentially the same stat lines and advanced metrics into a 2/30 deal while Ayton got the max. Why? Probably all based on his status as a #1 pick.
Ayton in PHO: 16.7 ppg, 10.5 reb, 1.0 blk, .604 fg%, .263 3p% (0.3 attempts/game), .160 WS/48, 1.3 OBPM, -0.2 DBPM, 1.1 BPM, 1.44 VORP/season, 120 ORTG, 109 DRTG, 20.5 PER
Jonas in MEM: 16.4 ppg, 11.7 reg, 1.1 blk, .606 fg%, .349 3p% (1.1 attempts/game), .190 WS/48, 2.6 OBPM, 0.0 DBPM, 2.6 BPM, 1.6 VORP/season, 121 ORTG, 107 DRTG, 23.4 PER
Jonas was the better player, but he's on a $15MM AAV deal while Ayton is on a $33MM AAV. Age is the only factor in Ayton's favor, but since they signed their deals, Jonas has played in 74, 79 and 82 games. Ayton has only played in 67 and 55.
Ayton = bad contract.
There are 2 separate issues to address there:
1) Toronto pick conveying now or not
2) Where Spurs' own pick ends up.
Your argument pertains to the 2nd. In that sense, late picks who perform well (Maxey, Bane, Sengun, Jalen Johnson, etc) will also get paid, while obvious busts won't no matter the pick (Killian Hayes, Jarrett Culver, Kevin Knox, etc). In cases where extensions are undeservedly large, it's usually guys who are still "on the fence" by their 4th year and end up getting paid out of perceived potential rather than actual production. It just so happens that those guys were usually very young at the time of the draft and had some heavily desired traits (great positional size, off the charts athleticism, raw tools), and are usually drafted very high (candidates to fall in this category are players like Jalen Green, Shaedon Sharpe, Jabari Smith, etc). So there is some truth to it, but I'd say it's not primarily about where they were drafted, though I will concede in some cases teams do fall victims to the sunk cost fallacy and keep investing in players who don't deserve it. In this draft it's true that there is no clear tier break at the very top, so I'm fine either way.
As for the first point, this doesn't look like a great draft and the next is supposed to be much better, but there is a lot of uncertainty as to what would happen with Toronto, with a real possibility that they'd tank much harder if they find themselves in a similar position next season as they did in this one. In that case, the pick may not convey next year either, and that's a risky proposition. And if they do steer the ship, then that pick may end up in the mid teens rather than the high lottery, which likely won't give you access to much better players than you can get now at 7. With all of that in mind and considering the many picks the Spurs have lined up next year, I'm inclined to go for the bird in hand approach and have it convey now. But if that isn't the case, it isn't the end of the world either.
All in all, I think a 4 & 7 scenario would be ideal, even a 6 & 7. I'd be pretty happy with that.
This, I'm not expecting this draft to be game changing.
Nah, give me #1 anyday. I prefer having even a remote chance at getting a borderline star or elite role player than adding another two average role players with little chances they'll be more than than that.
Talent is really hard to get in the NBA, specially for free. You shouldn't pass the chance.
That's a crucial point. Spurs should really not add rookies for the sake of it then see how it goes, but only if they feel it's worth it.
They shouldn't happily jump on every pick and prospect passing by, but be picky with their picks. Adding 2 rookies in a bad draft may mean renouncing better ones in the future or not being able to make other needed moves.
Yes, 1 and 7 is the best possible outcome.
Conspiracy of the day, brought to you by "Uneducated United"
This is all rigged, you fools. Woke NBA knows Risacher and Sarr are going top 2 and has move back the lottery to an earlier time some french audience can see it.
It's all a business, you sheeps.
(Now saying this, I'll be able to actually see it. So, that works).
Last edited by JPB; 1 Week Ago at 09:15 AM.
What determines what day and time the draft lottery is? I recall last year it was a Tuesday night (US time).
You're strawmanning my argument man, I never said Ayton was worth his contract. I said Phoenix was better off paying it because he was a valuable asset. Do you think they would have been better off with nothing instead of Nurkic + Allen? Because that's what you're going to have to argue to say the Suns shouldn't have paid Ayton.
Last edited by baseline bum; 1 Week Ago at 10:22 AM.
Right. The team clearly needs talent, but there will be so much churn in the next few years that it may be necessary to handle it, like a rapids. They have a roster crunch now. Most of the players won't be around much longer, but it's not actually clear which ones have to go. Clearing room for two rookies this year will be a mild headache (it had been Graham and Mamu gone, supposedly, but what if they want to keep Mamu?).
After next year, it will probably be clearer who needs to go among the Barlows, Basseys, Wesleys, and so on. I'm only guessing two rookies will come in next year, but the accommodation will be important both roster-spot and salary-wise.
Good analysis. My overall point is that you never want to overpay for talent. We still don't know how the hugely onerous new CBA is going to work out. Superteams are catastrophic, so long as they make too much money. We may see the Minnesota Timberwolf window closing very rapidly because they can't hack it financially. The key to winning championships is having key stars, but also exceptional role players. And role players get expensive.
Optimally, we'll get two exceptional players next year, so good that they may be looking at max contracts. The Spurs have always been good at managing expenses and getting guys to accept less than market in general. Even then, they've had to make cost-cutting moves like the execrable trade of Luis Scola to drop salary. (Good God what a disaster.)
So, if we're hopefully getting a star or two next year, we don't want Zaccharie Risacher hanging around having been picked at #2 and wanting a bag. He's barely better than Julian Champagnie. Even worse, these extensions may be coming when Risacher isn't even done developing yet.
We have a miracle in our first 'true' tanking season giving us a super-generational talent who will vastly overperform even a supermax contract. And we got him without having any horrible longterm contracts. But things will get tricky with the new CBA to get more talent while maintaining things under the tax aprons. Things could either get totally out of control. OKC is already facing significant problems because they have three supposed max guys.
The Ayton situation is somewhat unusual. I mean, the Suns drafted a guy who, when asked what he was most looking forward to in the NBA, said "My second contract."
Getting rid of bad max contracts is going to get harder in the league as we go on. Again, we don't know how the CBA is going to play out, but the capacity of teams to absorb huge contracts over the cap is going to go away if it's not already gone.
Something else to keep in mind is that it was the Pacers who offered Ayton the max in restricted free agency. The Suns never had a choice between paying Ayton the max and paying him less than the max. Their only choice was to pay him the max or let him walk for nothing.
Matching the Pacers' max offer with the intention of trading him was perfectly reasonable imo, even if he wasn't necessarily worth the contract in a vacuum. Since one team (the Pacers) thought Ayton was worth the max, it would stand to reason that other teams might have thought the same. And I would imagine the Suns gauged interest in Ayton before deciding to match.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
