Reply With Quote
You'll have to refresh my memory on the 2016 Nets. Who did they have and were they expected to be better than they were? I assume Boston drafted Tatum or Brown with the draft pick?
I guess we generally agree on this, that the changes are slim. The area where we differ is how valuable that chance is.
You'll have to refresh my memory on the 2016 Nets. Who did they have and were they expected to be better than they were? I assume Boston drafted Tatum or Brown with the draft pick?
The trade happened in 2013. People, while they expect the nets to be worse in 2016 as Garnett and Pierce aged, didn’t expect them to be that bad. If they did the nets wouldn’t have done that trade.
Besides, nobody in 2013 would expect players like Tatum and brown to be available then as it’s so far in the future. Even when they were available people can’t see both of them working out the way they did. Kudos to the Celtics in developing both of them into the superstars they are now but the point stands that it’s a crapshoot. Again, of course it’s better for the pick to be unprotected but the returns of a protected vs unprotected is really not as big as a gap as people make it out to be, especially when the picks are top 3 or so protected.
Top 3 protected pick still can’t win the lottery, and most agree top 3 is where 80% of the draft’s talent lies. You keep trying to argue that the value isn’t that different, mostly by comparing worst cases for UFRPs against best cases for the most lightly protected pick, but the value is quite different if you consider the most likely scenario for each type of FRP.
FFS, there are many types of conveyance. Some picks are protected initially but are guaranteed to convey. Some have innate swap rights built in. Some can be deferred. Some are reverse-protected. To suggests that completely unprotected picks are the only thing distinct from like the Charlotte pick or the 2019 Raptors pick is way off base. Each type of protection has different strengths and weaknesses. The Spurs looking for just one kind of pick and be willing to pass up other ways to improve the team's long-term position would be insane to my way of thinking. Detroit, New York, OKC and Houston all showed how even moderately protected picks can be used to make the minor and intermediate trades that transitional teams need to be able to make while protecting their core assets. It's very possible that next year the Spurs see a guy in the middle of the first that they want, and it would be cool if they had a few picks like the Charlotte pick they could toss in to grab their guy.
Agreed. Jak falls in the grey area where you don’t meed and won’t get zero protection. If you are swallowing most of Russ’ contract no restrictions to 25-40mm in cap away.
Also, ppl need to realize the cost of cap changes due various cir stances like any other market in this world.
Thank you. You conveyed it way better than I ever could.
well frankly you didn’t convey that.
Thing with UFRP vs FRP is that you likely want it to be further in the future, so it is also a question of your own timeline. generally, any asset another team receives that is worth giving up a UFRP for is likely to make them good enough that short term no protection would kick in. so you'd want to get that further down the road, when it actually matters. a FRP you can take also in the near future, as it's likely to cash in as the other team will outperform the protection anyway.
as a team giving away the FRP, the best you can do is make the other team believe that making it a UFRP is worth something, whereas you expect it to be totally irrelevant. then you sell something worth nothing to get something back.
It only would have conveyed if Chinook hadn't jumped into the top 4.
That honing on an UFRP is overrated? I was quite clear on that in the first post.
What a coincidence.. the max amount they can pay him is exactly how much I’d offer haha
I really wish people didn't take what Windhorst says as reporting. Most of the time, it's just his analysis. Like the Spurs being limited has been well-known on this forum for ages, and he's obviously worth it. So one can safely say they want to extend him but that he thinks he's worth more. But if his goal is to earn more money, the Spurs are still his best bet going forward. There's no reason for the Spurs to believe they're in real danger of losing Poeltl if they really value him.
Spurs fans should probably get used to this. This same situation is what happened with Murray and its what is likely going to happen with Keldon. When players outplay the value of their second contract, it doesn't make sense for them to sign an extension because they're likely losing a lot of value. Doesn't mean that the Spurs can't still offer the appropriate value for a player, but it is more dicey as it requires going to free agency since it can't be through an extension. They'll probably address this in the next CBA.
The good news is that with no ball dominant guys, players should want to stay. Poertle isn't going to get much better offers. Keldon might get swayed by a big market looking for a star but the spurs know how to trade these guys for value so no big deal
Agreed. There are so many other ways in which an in bent team gets advantages in re-signing their own players, the restriction on max extension size doesn't really make sense. Since the Spurs will have Poeltl's full Bird rights at the end of this season why restrict them from offering an extension up to his maximum salary now? I sure hope the next CBA does address this.
Problem is, what he supposedly rejected (around 15M per year) is about fair value IMO, judging by other centers' contracts (Jarret Allen, Valanciunas, Robert Williams, Capela, etc.). It shouldn't go much higher... maybe a couple million more (17/18), but more than than would be an overpay IMO.
Well, he's better than all of them in today's game and the cap is rising, so someone will offer 20ish, no question.
I'd go up to 18 to 20 with the new cap, he's worth it.
I remember when many (including our site leader) were very unhappy with the contract Poeltl signed, believing it way too much.
No he isn't, that's a Spurs fan speaking. Go ask Cleveland, NO or Boston if they'd swap any one of them for Poeltl and you'll get rejected in a minute.
If they don't extend him, the Spurs can pay him anything as an FA, right? His current salary doesn't affect FA offers, only extensions, right?
Boston would probably swap him for Robert Williams instantly just on durability alone.
I think Yak is underrated, and because of that I also don’t see a team coveting him unless it’s a team with a former Spurs staffer/coach who appreciates him. He has no jump shot. His game is nuanced but with some holes and there are reasons teams won’t pursue him, not all valid, but he’s under the radar. Just saying…
Some context: Steven Adams earns over 17M this year.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions