CBS Sports-Quinn: The Spurs and Thunder blueprints for success in the second-apron world

[Seventyniner]

How dare someone praise PATFO. The nerve.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

But what about Castle?
If we get Jrue 2.0, which is probably Castle's best scenario, then we're got to get rid of 2 players if we're to have any depth since Castle will also get a 25-30% rookie max extension based on accolades.
That would be Wemby at ~$70M, Castle at ~$40M, with Lauri and Devin entering final year at ~$50M and ~$27M, respectively.
With cap projected to be at ~$205M in that season. Obviously we'll evenually (and hopefully) go into luxury, but still.

There's a ton of buzz about the 2nd apron this summer and it will grow louder when the actual punishments start rolling. However, we should not discount the possibility that at some point in the near to medium future the CBA's regulations for certain contracts could be altered.

For example, it has long been proposed that supermax deals for players drafted by the team giving them should count as a regular max when it comes to the cap hit. It sounds logical. Similar could be done for other extensions for drafted players, all in the spirit of not punishing teams for drafting well and paying those players in order to keep the teams together. The NBA want parity but they also want dynasties. It's possible they look into this at some point.

[LeBowen]

For example, it has long been proposed that supermax deals for players drafted by the team giving them should count as a regular max when it comes to the cap hit.

That is the most reasonable idea and I've been saying it for years, but didn't happen.
They dealt with cap advantages for big market teams, but since it's not a hard cap, rich owners have no issues paying a couple hundred million more and still operating at a profit.

[R. DeMurre]

But what about Castle?
If we get Jrue 2.0, which is probably Castle's best scenario, then we're got to get rid of 2 players if we're to have any depth since Castle will also get a 25-30% rookie max extension based on accolades.
That would be Wemby at ~$70M, Castle at ~$40M, with Lauri and Devin entering final year at ~$50M and ~$27M, respectively.
With cap projected to be at ~$205M in that season. Obviously we'll evenually (and hopefully) go into luxury, but still.

That's why I said OKC are better off without three all-star level players if they don't want to make some tough decisions.
Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I'd be content with Castle living up to the hype and getting elite role players in the draft if we're to keep the core long-term.
And that's why getting an all-star while our cap situation is good is better than thinking we'll draft and develop an all-star because eventually we won't be able to keep all of them even if we're back to being the best development team in the league.

I think we'll see interesting situations where teams are actually hoping that some guys develop into well rounded players who don't have flashy scoring stats, because those types don't traditionally get maxed out-- guys like Herb Jones, or in the past, a Shane Battier or Andrei Kirilenko. Funny to think of a GM in church praying that a player will play good D and be a connector glue guy, but also saying "please God, don't let him go over 12 ppg!"

[MannyIsGod]

Every CBA is the owners trying to control their own worst impulses. They're always meant to reduce the amount they pay for good but not great players, especially. Then, as soon as the new CBA is established, they run off and sign their good but not great players to exorbitant salaries. It never works, because they can't help themselves.

If a team can manage to keep from paying the Immanuel Quicklies or, yes, Lauri Markkanens huge salaries, they will avoid problems for themselves. The new media contract will help considerably, but most franchises will still get bit.

The Spurs are in phenomenal shape in getting their super-generational talent without sitting on any bad contracts. They also have a history of frontloading contracts and trying to control costs, while having something of a history of taking care of their guys.

It never works because its not the owners operating in a vaccuum but negotiating with the players. The players aren't just going to say just pay us less! The cap remains a cap and will always hamstring owners but as long there is collective bargaining and the players dictate that they get a certain percentage of all revenue (and they should) then this system will remain relatively the same. The adjustments are made at the margins but the system is working completely as intended; this isn't some fault.

[MannyIsGod]

The Spurs front office gets too much legacy praise from some national media but I also think that people here are as a whole way too down on their moves most of the time. They're not the best FO by any stretch but they're also not near the bottom.

[Atl Spur]

How dare someone praise PATFO. The nerve.

Exactly!

[Atl Spur]

The Spurs front office gets too much legacy praise from some national media but I also think that people here are as a whole way too down on their moves most of the time. They're not the best FO by any stretch but they're also not near the bottom.

Top 5 for sure right?

[Mr. Body]

Eh... we can quibble about draft picks and some mistakes here or there, but the FO is easily among top of the league in using cap space and assets lately. They've really plotted out a plan on how to handle things for the next eight to ten years. I'm not sure there's been more than equals at getting assets out of pure cap space and flexibility, from grabbing SRPs from Miami and NOPe to using Reggie Bullock to get a swap. Getting Harrison Barnes and a swap for nothing is pretty expert stuff.

[TeKu]

Quinn contemplates changes to how swaps could change hands in the future with the next CBA, but I think what will happen before then is that teams will catch on to what OKC and SAS are doing (I'm shocked they haven't already) and won't let them get away with it any longer. As I laid out in my bullet points, the marginal cost to give away a swap decreases the most swaps a team has in a given year already... but at some point a team is going to ask themselves why they are helping OKC and SAS load up like this. At some point, teams will stop dealing with OKC and SAS when it comes to swaps, or they'll start to ask for more in exchange. One thing this FO has done well is to exploit that before other teams really catch on. In that sense, really wish Sam Quinn would STFU with these articles

If that marginal cost to give away a swap decreases, alongside the benefit to the receiving team stacking, the more swaps that are attached to a single pick... then you'd think it would have been in both SAC and SA's interest to have this be a 2030 swap (given existing DAL/MIN swap rights) rather than 2031 swap?? Or am I missing something?

[scott]

If that marginal cost to give away a swap decreases, alongside the benefit to the receiving team stacking, the more swaps that are attached to a single pick... then you'd think it would have been in both SAC and SA's interest to have this be a 2030 swap (given existing DAL/MIN swap rights) rather than 2031 swap?? Or am I missing something?

Yeah, I would have pushed for a 2030 Swap if I were the Spurs... but it's kind a toss up. Does the marginal value of a 3rd swap in one year outweigh the marginal value of a 1st swap in another year? Hmmmm... there's a way to mathematically calculate this based on the assumption that the far future distribution of pick order is completely random... but I'm too lazy to do that math. Usually when that happens I just sit back and hope Ariel does it for me

[TeKu]

Yeah, I would have pushed for a 2030 Swap if I were the Spurs... but it's kind a toss up. Does the marginal value of a 3rd swap in one year outweigh the marginal value of a 1st swap in another year? Hmmmm... there's a way to mathematically calculate this based on the assumption that the far future distribution of pick order is completely random... but I'm too lazy to do that math. Usually when that happens I just sit back and hope Ariel does it for me

And here I was hoping you were the math genius I'd have thought a 2030 swap too if it's all about getting a top 5 pick.

[baseline bum]

But what about Castle?
If we get Jrue 2.0, which is probably Castle's best scenario, then we're got to get rid of 2 players if we're to have any depth since Castle will also get a 25-30% rookie max extension based on accolades.

I don't think Jrue is Castle's best case: I think if he hits his ceiling it's Dennis Johnson with a three point shot (which I expect DJ would have developed had he played in this era).