BREAKING: De'Aaron Fox Signs $4-yr/$229M Max Extension with the Spurs

[dbreiden83080]

Remember when good but NOT great players were paid what they were really worth?

I'm starting to forget..

[Spurs Homer]

I just checked my account and exactly -ZERO $$$ - came out of it to help the spurs make this deal...

so its a good deal all around.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

If Fox and Wemby stay healthy next season then the most important player becomes Vassell tbh.

If Devin has a good season, I can see this roster getting out of the play in bracket.

Ugh Devin was rough last season, if he can’t get it together this year it’ll probably be his last as a Spur.

[scott]

Technically, we could survive one year of 35% (Wemby) + 30% (Fox) + 25% (Castle) + 25% (Harper) contracts because second apron is at 135% of the cap and those 4 contracts would add up to 115%.
Luxury line is at 120%.

It's just that it's not feasible long term, but that would be only for 29-30 season and Fox's contract is done in 2023.

if Castle or Harper earn 30% extension it will be a good problem to have because they'll be all-star level at the end of their rookie contracts and Spurs could probably create an overpowered roster for 26-27 and 27-28 seasons.

Wemby won't be eligible for 35% until 2031-32 at the earliest, Fox's deal won't be an issue by then.

[scott]

What you're not acknowledging is that the Spurs aren't the Lakers and can't run the risk of alienating players who make the move to be traded to them without also running risk. There's no obvious risk free course of action here so while there is risk with this contract, there is risk with every pathway the Spurs could possible take so simply pointing out the existence of said risk doesn't somehow make a point.

What the real question here should be does this course of action have an acceptable level of risk to the chance of it being successful? Well how do you evaluate that? You have to consider the risk involved with the other scenarios. So as we can't go back and rewrite history and Fox WAS traded whats the downside of not giving him the max? Obviously is hte fact that he turns this season toxic, you lose trust with a very powerful agency entering the prime years of what you hope is the best player in the league, and you lose the trust of other players in your organization and across the league. That seems like a very risky situation, no? YMMV but I would rather not risk that and instead count on Fox maintaining his value since he is not old or showing signs of becoming worse and is on a very talented roster.

Your analogy really falls flat for me. You're comparing the Spurs getting Harper and having more options and opportunities moving forward with about the most catastrophic type of situation in a job loss and home purchase. Its a bad analogy.

The better analogy is that the Spurs are an employer and made a job offer to a candidate (Fox) who accepted the job offer. Then a better/cheaper/different candidate applied for the same job, so the company withdrew their offer to Fox, who has already put in notice with his other job and moved across the country to start on Monday.

It's a bad look when employers do that, and it would be a bad look for the Spurs to do that.

[scott]

In 3-4 years, he gets a max bag of $$$, probably a ring, and some awards hardware. They’ll also include he and Rich Paul in the process, and let them pick their team again. Spurs don’t screw or surprise people. He’ll be taken care of.

Or maybe he'll be an All NBA PG next to Wemby, win multiple chips, maybe a Finals MVP, retire a Spur and have his jersey hanging in the rafters. There is tons of optionality here. Spurs are only really out of luck if Fox gets hurt or just completely falls off the cliff, but that is the same risk that exists with any player in the NBA. You don't avoid giving good players the contracts they command based on the risk inherent in being an NBA player.

[Raven]

he'll probably get traded in a few years

[LeBowen]

Wemby won't be eligible for 35% 2031-32 at the earliest, Fox's deal won't be an issue by then.

My bad, I was sure he could get 35% if he wins an MVP, but it's only for second extension.

Another thing with Fox/Harper dynamic is that we needed another point guard.
Harper will surely be overqualified for your usual backup point guard job, but he's got the size to play as SG if he can shoot well enough.
How many important minutes he gets is up to him.

[ismael-robert]

Harper n castle not fully panning out makes them more affordable. Plus theyre always going to be more part of plan than fox simply based on ages being similar to wemby. Fox will decline while theyre still young

[John B]

Funny how the Spurs haven’t had an AS for years, and ST complaining on the 1st max signing. It’s a sign of good things to come es

[scott]

My bad, I was sure he could get 35% if he wins an MVP, but it's only for second extension.

Another thing with Fox/Harper dynamic is that we needed another point guard.
Harper will surely be overqualified for your usual backup point guard job, but he's got the size to play as SG if he can shoot well enough.
How many important minutes he gets is up to him.

Yeah I think the earliest you can get the 35% max (if you qualify) is Year 9. Paolo's extension, for example voided the 5th year of his rookie deal and has a voidable 5th year on his extension, so he could get 35% in his 9th year. You have to have 7 or 8 years of service and 1 or 2 years on your contact remaining - which I read as being Year 9 is the earliest possible season you can get 35%.

[DPG21920]

Go away, we'll let you know when the Spurs start contending again so you can start watching games.

I have season tickets last 5 years and go to every game

[DPG21920]

What you're not acknowledging is that the Spurs aren't the Lakers and can't run the risk of alienating players who make the move to be traded to them without also running risk. There's no obvious risk free course of action here so while there is risk with this contract, there is risk with every pathway the Spurs could possible take so simply pointing out the existence of said risk doesn't somehow make a point.

What the real question here should be does this course of action have an acceptable level of risk to the chance of it being successful? Well how do you evaluate that? You have to consider the risk involved with the other scenarios. So as we can't go back and rewrite history and Fox WAS traded whats the downside of not giving him the max? Obviously is hte fact that he turns this season toxic, you lose trust with a very powerful agency entering the prime years of what you hope is the best player in the league, and you lose the trust of other players in your organization and across the league. That seems like a very risky situation, no? YMMV but I would rather not risk that and instead count on Fox maintaining his value since he is not old or showing signs of becoming worse and is on a very talented roster.

Your analogy really falls flat for me. You're comparing the Spurs getting Harper and having more options and opportunities moving forward with about the most catastrophic type of situation in a job loss and home purchase. Its a bad analogy.

Maybe - but we have Wemby and plenty of guys would be willing to play and I dont think anyone would think less of Spurs acting completely rational. I mean look at the collective reaction by non spurs fans to this deal. Both fans and pundits alike dont really like it and see risk. Im not taking some contrarian position here.

I think the fear of Klutch and reputation in a league where CBA is killer, players have all the power anyways and demand trades whenever they want is misplaced fear and team, as long as you are acting rational and not s my for no reason should be ok looking out for their best interest overall.

I dont think anyone, player or agent, especially after Spurs gave up 8 picks to get Fox out of a situation he hated would be mad at Spurs for telling Fox “look, we are a small market and the only way this works is if you take less especially now that we unexpectedly got Harper in addition to Castle”

What’s he going to do request a trade and let spurs get some of their picks back and a player that fits better?

[DPG21920]

Honestly if you want to talk about risk the biggest risk the Spurs took this offseason was not moving Castle. It is quite possible that out of Harper, Fox, and Castle the one with the lowest chance of success is Castle. If he doens't develop, then you've punted on moving him this year when his value was highest. I've got absolutely no problem with this, but if I'm judging outcomes for these 3 players then the most likely by a good margin is that Castle is the worst out of the 3. I love the kid and have high hopes, but I think not all that likely he is ever better than Fox.

Not even close. A ROY on a rookie scale deal busting does not hurt nearly as much as a max player who you gave up 8 picks for busting. Castle will always have some plus value or at worst you can just let him walk as a FA. Fox downside is infinitely more painful IMO

[DPG21920]

backup C was a crucial pickup. the on/off splits from being a high end defense to a historically bad one is something that absolutely needed to be addressed if the spurs wanted to "go for it" and "win now"

and if you think trading for a 27yo Fox means they had to trade away the #2 pick to be consistent then i whole heartedly disagree

as for #14, it depends what veteran you think could have been had for 14. they were in on Durant from what we know, didnt happen.

I never said backup C was not needed. Im saying in context of making huge win now swings, doing just a back up center is not really doing much towards that goal overall to truly accelerate.

I also never said trade pick 2. But Spurs not only had guys like Vassell, Barnes, Sochan and Keldon to move but pick 14 and the other future picks/swaps to use as well.

[DPG21920]

The better analogy is that the Spurs are an employer and made a job offer to a candidate (Fox) who accepted the job offer. Then a better/cheaper/different candidate applied for the same job, so the company withdrew their offer to Fox, who has already put in notice with his other job and moved across the country to start on Monday.

It's a bad look when employers do that, and it would be a bad look for the Spurs to do that.

Not even close lol. NBA is not a regular job. Spurs paying Fox 200M would still be seen as a top flight deal for Fox for example. Thats why so many are shocked SA paid Fox the full max.

[DPG21920]

Again, Im not hating on it. I think theres some context and nuance here. I dont love the deal mostly because it doesn’t benefit Spurs at all and didnt make sense IMO to have to do this now.

That doesnt mean I think it’s a high probability it blows up or that Fox wont fit well and team wont be good. I just think the tracks are now laid for some real trouble beyond the normal “well everything has risk if you think about it” stuff.

[baseline bum]

Remember when good but NOT great players were paid what they were really worth?

I'm starting to forget..

Not really. Before the 99 lockout and max contracts they were hugely underpaid while the Jordans and Ewings sucked up all the money, and after the 99 lockout and max contracts they became overpaid while the megastars like Tim, Kobe, LeBron, etc became grossly underpaid.

[scott]

Not even close lol. NBA is not a regular job. Spurs paying Fox 200M would still be seen as a top flight deal for Fox for example. Thats why so many are shocked SA paid Fox the full max.

It's been explained ad nauseum for you here. If you still don't get it, that's a you thing.

[Jordan Jackson]

Makes me wonder if Sacramento told Fox he wasn't getting a max from them and to go find another team willing to pay him (we all know Sac has a messed up front office), and 6 months later here we are. It’s a lot of money, hope he's worth it.

The Kings did offer and he declined. Which sent up red flags, he was gone. Well that and him hiring Klutch.

He doesn’t want to be perceived as a loser anymore and wanted a bigger stage. Say what you want about the Spurs the last few years - it’s still a marquee team especially with Wemby.

[itzsoweezee]

Do people think this contract is untradeable? Seems like the spurs still have a lot of flexibility, especially if castle and Harper turn out to be good.

[baseline bum]

The better analogy is that the Spurs are an employer and made a job offer to a candidate (Fox) who accepted the job offer. Then a better/cheaper/different candidate applied for the same job, so the company withdrew their offer to Fox, who has already put in notice with his other job and moved across the country to start on Monday.

It's a bad look when employers do that, and it would be a bad look for the Spurs to do that.

Except Harper's more like a hotshot MIT grad with a good gpa and an impressive thesis, not a guy who has been doing the job for years and who you know is great at it already who produces results now like Fox. So you hire both if you can.

[cd98]

Spurstalk may be unsufferable for the next few years because the hate dial goes up every time a player not Tim Duncan or Wemby is talked about as getting paid. Fox is one of the fastest players in the league, he's an all star with all-star level skills, and he can be a great player for our team, but I think most importantly, my impression is he is a great leader and that is just what our young guards need.

[scott]

Not really. Before the 99 lockout and max contracts they were hugely underpaid while the Jordans and Ewings sucked up all the money, and after the 99 lockout and max contracts they became overpaid while the megastars like Tim, Kobe, LeBron, etc became grossly underpaid.

Here is the top paid player as a % of the cap going back to 2011 and then highest paid going forward based on currently signed deals and the estimated cap from 2025-2030.

2011 - Kobe 43.9%
2012 - Kobe 48.0%
2013 - Kobe 51.9% (!!!)
2014 - Kobe 37.3% (#2 was Joe Johnson at 36.8% )
2015 - Kobe 35.7%
2016 - LeBron 32.9% (#2 was Mike Conley followed by Demar Derozan, speaking of not great players getting paid)
2017 - Steph 35.0%
2018 - Steph 36.8%
2019 - Steph 36.9%
2020 - Steph 39.4%
2021 - Steph 40.7%
2022 - Steph 38.9%
2023 - Steph 38.2%
2024 - Steph 39.7%
2025 - Steph 38.5%
2026 - Steph 36.8%
2027 - Embiid 36.0%
2028 - Embiid 36.8%
2029 - Shai 36.8%
2030 - Shai 37.5%

But throughout all of those years there have always been "not great players" getting paid the max. In 2030, Mikal Bridges will be making 31% of the cap. He's not a great player. I already pointed out Joe Johnson, Mike Conley and DDR. In 2011, WAS was paying Rashard Lewis 36.4% of the cap. Rudy Gay was getting 30.6% of the Cap in 2014. In 2019, John Wall was getting 35% and Tobias Harris was getting 30%.

There will always been these "not great players" getting max deals because the max is too low to truly allocate the cap according to pure value. Kobe getting 50% of the cap was probably about what Jokic and Giannis would be worth these days if they weren't capped, and then maybe you'd see less of these middling max deals. But since there are 30 teams and the cap is limited to 25-35% of the cap, you'll always have at least the top 30 players getting a max.

[Mr. Body]

Honestly if you want to talk about risk the biggest risk the Spurs took this offseason was not moving Castle. It is quite possible that out of Harper, Fox, and Castle the one with the lowest chance of success is Castle. If he doens't develop, then you've punted on moving him this year when his value was highest. I've got absolutely no problem with this, but if I'm judging outcomes for these 3 players then the most likely by a good margin is that Castle is the worst out of the 3. I love the kid and have high hopes, but I think not all that likely he is ever better than Fox.

Moving Castle this summer would be one of the stupidest things I've seen in a long, long time. What the bro.