Reply With Quote
The good company hires both (like the Spurs did). The ty company drafts Marvin Bagley III instead or burns bridges with every other agent and FA in the league
Lmao ok. ST guys said something so that’s gospel. Forget the 99% of earth that disagrees what Scott explained is how it is.
The good company hires both (like the Spurs did). The ty company drafts Marvin Bagley III instead or burns bridges with every other agent and FA in the league
So then what’s your actual beef with me saying Spurs overpaid especially with context of Sa landing Harper unexpectedly when you agree it’s an overpay?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.
The deal was locked in because this is Klutch. The market is evaporating for players like Fox -- small, non-playmaking shooters who aren't great defenders. We're literally seeing teams leave that market in droves. Yet the Spurs max that player out. Sure, they have to bow down to Klutch, but sticking with a max is pretty crazy and we're going to be bleeding from this for a while.Never thought I'd agree with exstatic so much in a single thread tbh
As I said earlier, if you don't like this extension then you should have hated the deadline deal because this contract was locked up the moment Fox made it public that the Spurs were his preferred destination.
It has nothing to do with what I said. You stated your opinion, we heard you. What are you hoping to get out of repeating it a dozen times?
Where in what I said did you read that Fox is an overpay? He got exactly what Top 30 players in this league get. I think he's a top 30 player (as does just about every ranking of players in the league). Sounds like he got market.
Basically, what the argument seems to be is that Fox was maxed because:
1. He forced himself to the Spurs
2. He's a Klutch client
and not
3. He's a good player
This isn't disputing or dispelling his talents, but it's acknowledging that this contract has been made for other purposes, that we're rewarding a player who twisted his position to get here. Fine. And that it's to pay into the Klutch services. We have FO members who are Klutch. We seem to be piling in on the gravy train. Fine.
But that seems to make clear that this max contract is NOT because Fox is actually good. Market value, with his player archetype, would be lower. We're paying because of other reasons.
What are you getting by, as you said “explaining it ad nauseam”? It’s a conversation - don’t like it? Move on
It just happened hours ago and people are making points. You’re acting like I’m going on about it for weeks spamming multiple threads. Gtfo
And, as for the top 30 stuff, he's definitely not a top 30 player right now, and has not been one for a few years. This contract hopes that he becomes top 30 again, but he's definitely not at this time.
But throughout all of those years there have always been "not great players" getting paid the max. That’s not a ringing endorsement and also misses some context about this cba compared to others.
You've been anti-Fox since we made the deal, which is fine. But you can also just say what you really mean - which is that you don't think he's very good.
He’s top 30
There you go, you finally said it. It's fine to have that opinion. Other folks disagree.
He got paid a max because he's a Top 30 player and that what Top 30 (actually more like Top 45) players get, is my argument. Everyone is free to disagree on whether he is a Top Whatever player... but, there are currently 44 max contracts (rookie max, 30% max and 35% max) deals in the NBA. That's just the reality. If the absolute top were allowed to get paid over 35%, there would probably be less - but that's just the the economic structure of the league today.
There's a significant gap between guys like Collin Sexton/Cam Thomas/Malik Monk and guys like Fox/Jamal Murray tbh. You need bucket getters when you're playing meaningful games come April/May. Fox is elite at that and his gravity should make others around him better even if he's not prime Nash. Those guys get paid, plain and simple.
He's a much better fit than guys like Young, Garland, tbh especially if his shooting returns to form after a broken finger.
It's not intended to be an endorsement or not an endorsement, it's just reality. There are 44 max contracts in the NBA right now. You just said Fox is a Top 30 player. Top 30 players (and really top 45 players) get max deals. The reality in today's NBA (and for a long time now) is that the qualification for getting a max isn't being a great player, otherwise there would only be like 10-15 max contracts.
Fox with tied with KD for most Pts/Opp on ISOs last year at 1.16/opp (minimum 2 opportunities/game), just to add more stats to the fire
Spurs aren't trading Fox next year, it would be a bad look to sign him to an extension and trade him even before it kicks in. I think the earliest they'd consider trading him is 2 years from now, when Castle becomes extension eligible. If both he and Harper develop into budding stars, then you can move Fox having given him a couple of years to get playing with Wemby out of his system, while not causing him to lose money. That'd be a good outcome for all parties, IMO.
Last edited by Ariel; 08-04-2025 at 09:17 PM.
Naysayers are also overestimating the leverage FO had here.
At worst, Fox is the 2nd best player on the roster for at least the next two seasons. For an organization desperate to get back into the playoffs, you need talent like Fox plain and simple and you need him happy.
But you're not factoring in possible opportunity cost. Not to mention that on their rookie contracts early on people would have said the same about Keldon and Vassel and while they are too an extent, correct (both those players still hold a lot more value than most here acknowledge), that's not an all together unlikely for a shooting guard who won ROY in a year without much top end talent and never developed a 3 point shot. People are viewing Castle with rose colored glasses right now but there's a really significant chance he ends up like those two guys. A greater shot of that than him surpassing Fox, honestly.
EDIT - I'd agree worst case Fox is more painful but that worst case is far less likely than Castle's worst case.
In the best case scenario where both Castle and Harper prove to be future cornerstones of the franchise, you just trade Fox for multiple first rounders. There has never been a bigger non-issue than this one, tbh.
I don't disagree with any of this honestly, but I don't think they made the decision for this now. Pretty clear to me they made it when they made the trade and just didn't think it was right to go back on that which I respect, honestly.
Indeed. And what leverage would the Spurs have had to play hard ball here?
Spurs: we want to pay you less than the max because we got #2 and drafted a guy to replace you
Fox: No.
What are the Spurs going to do? Let him walk next offseason? Trade him and recoup a fraction of what they gave up for him because now he's a distressed asset you're trying to flip after 6 months?
I love how Fox, an all NBA caliber player, who's one of the best guards in the league is being shat on by some for getting the max because Castle and Harper will guaranteed get max deals and Harper will become the next Jordan lmfaoo
No where do I see me saying they should have moved him. I legit say that I love him and have high hopes, but he's a 2nd year player who's value may be at the highest it will ever be. That's - quite frankly - the most likely scenario moving forward. That doesnt' mean you don't see it out, it just means that it's not without risk. Out of the 3 players I named, its hard to argue that Castle isnt' the one who's got the lowest chance of ever being an All Star.
Depending on the site, Fox is usually ranked between 27th and 32nd.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions