2024 NBA Off-Season Thread (FA, Trades, Extensions, Rumors)

[RC_Drunkford]

The Spurs have done a good job not overpaying on rookie extensions recently. Vassell's deal is fair, and the ones given to Keldon/White/Dejounte were team friendly if anything. They also haven't given extensions to players that don't deserve one at all like Lonnie. I trust them not overpay Sochan or Wesley or Branham when the time comes.

offering him an extension is basically overpaying Branham, no matter what kind of money he gets.

[scott]

Sochan is still 21. Anyone who has a strong opinion on a player of this age is not Spurs material.

I think I understand what you are saying, but this is kind of a cowardly cop out for the front office, who's literal job is to have strong opinions on players, regardless of their age. If the league is going to expend all it's best draft capital on 19-year-olds, then FOs need to be able to develop strong opinions. If they can't, maybe they should find a different career.

[z0sa]

I think I understand what you are saying, but this is kind of a cowardly cop out for the front office, who's literal job is to have strong opinions on players, regardless of their age. If the league is going to expend all it's best draft capital on 19-year-olds, then FOs need to be able to develop strong opinions. If they can't, maybe they should find a different career.

This is the issue we're facing. So many people think because so-and-so is 20 or 21, we should reserve judgment. That's not the case anymore.

This isn't 2004 or even 2014, it's 2024. Players are leaving college ASAP to potentially make $10+ million. It's on the FO to keep up with the times and not ride out (AKA pay) shit players hoping they'll be better than advertised in year 2-3-4. They get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars themselves to literally not do that.

SA is a small market and so we suffer this shit, because there's not enough of a media presence to challenge the FO's actions. They're too afraid they'll be blacklisted, and/or the city will lose the team if there's enough bad press or whatever.

[Chinook]

I think $120M/5 is the smallest an extension is going to get for him. People thinking he's going to lock himself into an MLE contract a year early are off base. He may well take that or less in free agency, but for both sides to agree it has to be good enough to forgo that fourth year of evaluation.

[KingKev]

I think $120M/5 is the smallest an extension is going to get for him. People thinking he's going to lock himself into an MLE contract a year early are off base. He may well take that or less in free agency, but for both sides to agree it has to be good enough to forgo that fourth year of evaluation.

His actual value is that of an MLE player. He probably will get something like you said but mostly on perceived future value. If he just focuses on playing DEFENSE, hustling, running and finishing around the rim, being a clean up type guy than a Vassell type deal would be great value. I don’t see him improving much from what we have already seen however.

[LeBowen]

Or we can just let him hit RFA if he doesn't improve this year and doesn't accept a team-friendly deal.
Unlike empty stat scorers, not many teams will offer a lot of money for a wing with no offense considering the current CBA situation.
And he can earn his next deal in his contract year.

[timtonymanu]

Sochan is still 21. Anyone who has a strong opinion on a player of this age is not Spurs material.

Bend over, I’ll show you Spurs material.

[ambchang]

Tristan Thompson is a better comp.

TT’s defence was pretty bad from what I can recall, he was also a below average passer and ball handler. Sochan for all the crap he got last year is a pretty good passer and ball handler for someone his size. Tristan was a way better rebounder though, and bad as he was at protecting the basket was probably better at that than sochan will be.

Scary thought, sochan is already a way better shooter than Tristan ever was.

[Chinook]

His actual value is that of an MLE player. He probably will get something like you said but mostly on perceived future value. If he just focuses on playing DEFENSE, hustling, running and finishing around the rim, being a clean up type guy than a Vassell type deal would be great value. I don’t see him improving much from what we have already seen however.

He's not going to sign an MLE extension just because "his actual value is that of an MLE player". That would be foolish of him to do. He'd only sign that deal if he was worried about not getting it the following year. If he had some kind of injury history where he wanted to secure his bag, that would be one thing. But when talking extensions, the contract should be between where the player could be if everything goes right and where he could be if he doesn't improve. Sochan's going into his third straight season as the undisputed starter at his position. Castle, for all his accolades, doesn't seem to have a realistic chance to start at this point despite the team missing their top guard. That's how significant it is that the Spurs were willing to start Sochan from jump. It's very hard for the Spurs to pitch that they don't value him after spending years not questioning his role on the team. If he were fighting for a rotation spot like Moses Moody, then the cheap extension could make a lot more sense. But even after trading for a vet PF, the Spurs still seem hellbent on starting Jeremy. That's going to make their negotiating position really hard if they want him to take a smaller deal.


Or we can just let him hit RFA if he doesn't improve this year and doesn't accept a team-friendly deal.
Unlike empty stat scorers, not many teams will offer a lot of money for a wing with no offense considering the current CBA situation.
And he can earn his next deal in his contract year.

I want to make it clear that unless Sochan breaks out this season, I expect him to go into his final year without an extension. It'd be in Jeremy's best interest to hope he puts out a better year four and in the Spurs' best interest to avoid committing to Sochan's salary after giving themselves a legit window for cap space and going into the upward climb of Wemby's career. The reason why I see him having a bigger extension if he signs one is because he would have to make a Vassell-like jump for both sides to get out of their ditch, However, the "current CBA situation" should be put into proper context. Players are not getting less money in this new CBA. The escrow system mandates that. What's changing is who has to spend the money. As contenders are incentivized to spend less, middling teams are incentivized to spend more. A middling team was much more likely to push for Sochan than a contender anyway for the same reasons that might lead to the Spurs letting him walk. It's the middling team that might value the collection of tools enough to overlook the lack an actualized player.

The summer of 2026 currently has a bunch of teams with giant chunks of cap space -- currently more than half the league can create a third-tier max slot -- and a requirement to spend money to get to the salary floor. This year looks the way it does because it's a transition year. It's not equilibrium that will eventually be established.

[scott]

He's not going to sign an MLE extension just because "his actual value is that of an MLE player". That would be foolish of him to do. He'd only sign that deal if he was worried about not getting it the following year. If he had some kind of injury history where he wanted to secure his bag, that would be one thing. But when talking extensions, the contract should be between where the player could be if everything goes right and where he could be if he doesn't improve. Sochan's going into his third straight season as the undisputed starter at his position. Castle, for all his accolades, doesn't seem to have a realistic chance to start at this point despite the team missing their top guard. That's how significant it is that the Spurs were willing to start Sochan from jump. It's very hard for the Spurs to pitch that they don't value him after spending years not questioning his role on the team. If he were fighting for a rotation spot like Moses Moody, then the cheap extension could make a lot more sense. But even after trading for a vet PF, the Spurs still seem hellbent on starting Jeremy. That's going to make their negotiating position really hard if they want him to take a smaller deal.





I think this says a lot more about the state of the San Antonio Spurs the last few years than it does about Jeremy Sochan.

[Limguogolo]

I think I understand what you are saying, but this is kind of a cowardly cop out for the front office, who's literal job is to have strong opinions on players, regardless of their age. If the league is going to expend all it's best draft capital on 19-year-olds, then FOs need to be able to develop strong opinions. If they can't, maybe they should find a different career.
You might be right, but the problem with evaluating players so early is that when they finally blossom, it's then done in Europe.

And this is why there would be four or five Euroleague teams which, in an NBA conference, would have a level higher than play-in.

Between teams full of young people to develop or to tank, poorly constructed aging teams, poorly balanced teams with two overpaid stars (often injured) and role players, some of these teams in the NBA are not really competitive.

There would be around fifty players playing in Europe who could strengthen teams relegated outside the play-in. Problem is, these NBA teams still have to develop their own talents and the big players in Europe (including a good half of American players) cannot contractually come.

Not only can GMs make mistakes on players, whether or not they wait until they turn 25, but this also considerably weakens the level of the league then made up of big teams and teams worthy of a development league.

This is also probably the consequences of the draft. It might be time to consider moving to a single-round draft, requiring an age of at least 22, and making it easier to buy out Euroleague player contracts.

Seeing three teams out of 30 that are “under reconstruction” is still acceptable. When you have a quarter of the teams that are in a process of either development, reconstruction, or in-between, it is already more problematic for the spectacle that the league supposed to be the best in the world offers to the public.

[twodeep]

You might be right, but the problem with evaluating players so early is that when they finally blossom, it's then done in Europe.

And this is why there would be four or five Euroleague teams which, in an NBA conference, would have a level higher than play-in.

Between teams full of young people to develop or to tank, poorly constructed aging teams, poorly balanced teams with two overpaid stars (often injured) and role players, some of these teams in the NBA are not really competitive.

There would be around fifty players playing in Europe who could strengthen teams relegated outside the play-in. Problem is, these NBA teams still have to develop their own talents and the big players in Europe (including a good half of American players) cannot contractually come.

Not only can GMs make mistakes on players, whether or not they wait until they turn 25, but this also considerably weakens the level of the league then made up of big teams and teams worthy of a development league.

This is also probably the consequences of the draft. It might be time to consider moving to a single-round draft, requiring an age of at least 22, and making it easier to buy out Euroleague player contracts.

Seeing three teams out of 30 that are “under reconstruction” is still acceptable. When you have a quarter of the teams that are in a process of either development, reconstruction, or in-between, it is already more problematic for the spectacle that the league supposed to be the best in the world offers to the public.

Maybe the NBA should do like MLB with a minor league every team has a g league team and use it properly to build up players and change the drafts up who knows just a possible way to handle all the younger players

[Pauleta14]

In the end any good idea will have to be financially sustainable to even be tried.

Europe is a mess in terms or regulations and taxes, I can't see how it could get done tbh

[scott]

You might be right, but the problem with evaluating players so early is that when they finally blossom, it's then done in Europe.

And this is why there would be four or five Euroleague teams which, in an NBA conference, would have a level higher than play-in.

Between teams full of young people to develop or to tank, poorly constructed aging teams, poorly balanced teams with two overpaid stars (often injured) and role players, some of these teams in the NBA are not really competitive.

There would be around fifty players playing in Europe who could strengthen teams relegated outside the play-in. Problem is, these NBA teams still have to develop their own talents and the big players in Europe (including a good half of American players) cannot contractually come.

Not only can GMs make mistakes on players, whether or not they wait until they turn 25, but this also considerably weakens the level of the league then made up of big teams and teams worthy of a development league.

This is also probably the consequences of the draft. It might be time to consider moving to a single-round draft, requiring an age of at least 22, and making it easier to buy out Euroleague player contracts.

Seeing three teams out of 30 that are “under reconstruction” is still acceptable. When you have a quarter of the teams that are in a process of either development, reconstruction, or in-between, it is already more problematic for the spectacle that the league supposed to be the best in the world offers to the public.

I think this is a really interesting opinion, but in many ways I like the fact that GMs are forced into making tough decisions because of the salary cap or roster limitations. Creating massive farm system structures that allow teams to stash and slowly develop players (beyond the two-way and stash capabilities they have now) could ultimately limit some parity and take away the strategic element of finding players off another team's trash heap who was just underutilized and needs an opportunity.

In the end, there are no perfect solutions - but your idea is very interesting. Maybe not my favorite from a team building perspective, but it definitely would create some interesting basketball!

I tend to think the best solution is just to raise the draft age requirements by a year.

[LeBowen]

In the end, there are no perfect solutions - but your idea is very interesting. Maybe not my favorite from a team building perspective, but it definitely would create some interesting basketball!

Young players would most definitely benefit from some kind of competition that's a level below the real thing, but is actual basketball and not G-league.
The most important thing for young players is to play, which most of them can't do. No practicve makes up for actual game experience.
But as you said, how can teams that are trying to compete tolerate young players who aren't ready yet?


I tend to think the best solution is just to raise the draft age requirements by a year.

I disagree. Not everyone has the same trajectory. Some players are ready earlier and they shouldn't lose a year because of their inferior peers.
Flagg would surely be good enough to start on some of the worst teams in the league even at 17.

On the other hand, you have players who develop into all-stars but weren't ready up until like 23 or something.
Going abroad before hitting the draft also isn't an option if we're talking best leagues because those teams have no incentive to develop a player who'll be gone in a year or two.

There's no perfect solution.

[spursgu]

Sengun is absolutely worth his contract. Green actually giving a more fair deal.

lol dbutthurt2008, go post downstairs in the Wemby thread to compensate for how shitty your Rockets are