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

[LeBowen]

On Spurstalk the age 32 is a death sentence

Which is hillarious considering that Spurs owe most of their success to veteran play.

[scott]

Yes they like getting paid more than otherwise, but its not just them. Their agents like it too. Every GM would rather have max salaries, every owner would rather have max salaries. I'm sure the league would rather have maxes compared to 10-15 guys getting literally 1/2 of all salaries. The media prefers it, more stupid articles and fake-fights this way, more talent aggregation/destiny potential. I think pretty much everyone likes it except the handful of guys that generate more revenue than their contract, and the handful of fans that would appreciate parity.

Nailed it. And those Top 10-15 who are underpaid due to the max are making it up in other ways (if they want to). Everyone seems happy with the arrangement, save for fans too stupid to recognize how resource allocation works and would rather slobber all over themselves with "a ToP 30 pLaYeR iSnT wOrTh ThE mAx"

[Mal]

It's like people just keep saying things and have it read any of the thread or done any research at all.

Jesus ing Christ you people. This was the right decision and the money was the right decision. It works on the timeline, the current personnel and it's something you have and above average chance to get out of if it doesn't work. He's a top 30 player and a good locker room guy. He wants to be here badly and he wants to win badly.

Everything can't be perfect. But saying it isn't good it's just being ridiculous.

I am in deal had to be done camp, Fox is good player in the prime, and that's the market value for borderline all-stars these days.

And 32 is prime age for NBA, dont get me wrong

[CGD]

No one would care about the max had we not lucked into Harper. It’s time to move on.

[Pauleta14]

He will be 32 in the last year of the deal, come on

We'll see but I'm not sure it's an easily tradable contract, which is to me the main criteria to quality it as a good one.

There was no negotiations as the assurance to give Fox the max was probably negociated part of the reasons Spurs didn't have to give too much to SAC, but they'll have to pay ultimately in 4-5 years (with Wemby Castle AND Harper's extensions in the books!)

I hope he gets a reliable jumpshot

[Pauleta14]

It's like people just keep saying things and have it read any of the thread or done any research at all.

Jesus ing Christ you people. This was the right decision and the money was the right decision. It works on the timeline, the current personnel and it's something you have and above average chance to get out of if it doesn't work. He's a top 30 player and a good locker room guy. He wants to be here badly and he wants to win badly.

Everything can't be perfect. But saying it isn't good it's just being ridiculous.

I'm not saying it wasn't the right thing to do. There was no other choice anyway

[LeBowen]

We'll see but I'm not sure it's an easily tradable contract, which is to me the main criteria to quality it as a good one.

If you're going to go with that criteria, no max deal is easily treadeable due to salary matching and whatnot.
We got Fox for dirt cheap and if he gives us 3 peak level years we can let him go for free when Castle/Harper are up for extensions if they develop into all-star level guards.
Barring major injuries which can happen to anyone, Fox will never be a negative contract we'll have to pay to get out of.
We went over it before, but theoretically just the 29-30 season is critical with cap management if both Castle and Harper get rookie max extensions and even then we wouldn't be over projected second apron. We can (hopefully) afford to pay a bit more tax for one season.

[Ice009]

What are all you people complaining for? I'm seeing complaints everywhere - even outside of ST. He asked to be traded to the Spurs, the Spurs wanted him, and part of the deal would have been a max contract. If the Spurs didn't want to pay him that, they wouldn't have traded for him.

[poopbox]

Why are people so fixated on how tradeable this contract is? Who says Fox ever get's traded?

How do you guys take a player who has played in 0 real nba games in harper and another guard who shot below league average from almost everywhere on the floor in Castle and say "yeah both of these guys will be so good one day we will have to trade Fox let's make sure we get him on a contract we can easily trade when we have to"

Is that how you guys live your day to day life?

Yeah let me turn down this job that pays 80k right now cause 3 years from now I will be working a job that pays 130k let me make sure I don't have anything distracting me so that in 3 years I can accept that job

[Pauleta14]

If you're going to go with that criteria, no max deal is easily treadeable due to salary matching and whatnot.
We got Fox for dirt cheap and if he gives us 3 peak level years we can let him go for free when Castle/Harper are up for extensions if they develop into all-star level guards.
Barring major injuries which can happen to anyone, Fox will never be a negative contract we'll have to pay to get out of.
We went over it before, but theoretically just the 29-30 season is critical with cap management if both Castle and Harper get rookie max extensions and even then we wouldn't be over projected second apron. We can (hopefully) afford to pay a bit more tax for one season.

Fair point, the logic works for lower contracts mostly.

Again, I'm not complaining, happy we signed him especially considering how young and unreliable Castle and Harper will be for a few more years.

It's all about leverage anyway and Fox/Klutch has all of it considering how their player's portfolio keeps growing, we better keep good relations with them

All I was saying is pointing the timing of the last 2 seasons and their weight in the extensions of Castle and Harper & Bryant (Wemby being a no-brainer max). There's a scenario where Fox becomes a huge handicap in constructing the team if there's a huge drop off in production or career altering injury (2 unfortunately realistic cases at his (future) age)

[LeBowen]

All I was saying is pointing the timing of the last 2 seasons and their weight in the extensions of Castle and Harper & Bryant (Wemby being a no-brainer max).

Wemby 30% + Fox 30% + Castle 25% + Harper 25% = 100% of the cap. Luxury line is at 120%, first apron is at 125%, second apron is at 135% of the cap. We could keep all five for one season, I doubt that Bryant will be a rookie max extension player.
The only ones who should be worried in all of this are the friendship crew members.

If both Castle and Harper prove to be the real deal with Wemby being the best player in the league, we wouldn't need anything more than a cheap backup big with a handful of Champagnie-like 3-D guys to be the best team in the league.
Then Fox's contract expires and he either walks or becomes a 6th man on a reasonable contract at 33.

[spurraider21]

this is also assuming that both castle and harper are max players. if they're all max caliber players, then you can definitely trade one of castle/fox/harper and still have 2 all star guards

[scott]

this is also assuming that both castle and harper are max players. if they're all max caliber players, then you can definitely trade one of castle/fox/harper and still have 2 all star guards

If Fox is performing up to his contract, there isn't really a likely path to both Castle and Harper being max players since there is only one ball to go around. The closest example I can think of is Tatum (35%) + Brown (35%) + Jrue (21%) + Tingus (21%) + DWhite (18%). That was a markedly different situation in a much different market.

If everything goes absolutely perfectly and the Spurs become a championship winner and perennial 60 game winner, I could see one of Harper or Castle getting the max and the other getting 20%. But this assumes the absolute best case on the court outcome.

The case where both Castle and Harper become max players is actually one of the worst case scenarios, because it probably means one of Fox or Wemby has been injured or their performance just falls off a cliff. This is worst case because now you're in a situation where either Fox or Wemby has become a negative asset that will be very difficult to move. But that's a risk present with any big contract.

[TekXX]

Everyone assuming Castle and Harper are the future, let's just wait and see first. Damn the off-season daydreaming can get out of control. The Spurs are getting racked over the coals for giving a max deal to a guy who isn't even top 30. I don't have a good feeling about this. This is the biggest sign that Pop has been sidelined.

[Brazil]

if Harper and Castle become max players I don't think we should worry too much of how salaries will fit

[Seventyniner]

Fox is great insurance against one or both of Castle and Harper not turning into a star. If both do, that's a really great "problem" to have.

[LeBowen]

If Fox is performing up to his contract, there isn't really a likely path to both Castle and Harper being max players since there is only one ball to go around. The closest example I can think of is Tatum (35%) + Brown (35%) + Jrue (21%) + Tingus (21%) + DWhite (18%). That was a markedly different situation in a much different market.

If everything goes absolutely perfectly and the Spurs become a championship winner and perennial 60 game winner, I could see one of Harper or Castle getting the max and the other getting 20%. But this assumes the absolute best case on the court outcome.

The case where both Castle and Harper become max players is actually one of the worst case scenarios, because it probably means one of Fox or Wemby has been injured or their performance just falls off a cliff. This is worst case because now you're in a situation where either Fox or Wemby has become a negative asset that will be very difficult to move. But that's a risk present with any big contract.

If Wemby gets hurt the only thing that's moving are the Spurs.

[spurraider21]

If Fox is performing up to his contract, there isn't really a likely path to both Castle and Harper being max players since there is only one ball to go around. The closest example I can think of is Tatum (35%) + Brown (35%) + Jrue (21%) + Tingus (21%) + DWhite (18%). That was a markedly different situation in a much different market.

If everything goes absolutely perfectly and the Spurs become a championship winner and perennial 60 game winner, I could see one of Harper or Castle getting the max and the other getting 20%. But this assumes the absolute best case on the court outcome.

The case where both Castle and Harper become max players is actually one of the worst case scenarios, because it probably means one of Fox or Wemby has been injured or their performance just falls off a cliff. This is worst case because now you're in a situation where either Fox or Wemby has become a negative asset that will be very difficult to move. But that's a risk present with any big contract.

i think the path to them becoming max players is if Castle becomes a Jaylen Brown level wing and Harper becomes that Manu or OKC Harden supersub who can play minutes at SG in addition to running the unit when Fox sits

from watching all the offseason stuff Castle has been doing with guard whisperer guy, it doesnt really seem like his jumper is getting all that much better, and the emphasis has been on handling/self creation stuff which probably isnt the direction the team wants to take his game anyway

[Guru of Nothing]

OFFICIAL: I triple dog dare Castle and Harper to become max level all stars.

[dn0774]

If Harper and Castle become legit max guys (all stars) and Wemby/Fox are healthy then we are one of the greatest teams ever assembled. In that scenario Fox's contract isn't a concern and life as a Spurs fan would be amazing. If one or both don't become max guys then we absolutely needed Fox anyway. Either way, I am glad Fox is in the fold.

[clampi]

Few thoughts:

-Trade ('YEAH CRAZY BARGAIN') and extension ("OMG OVERPAY") have to be considered as a package, it's obvious that Rich Paul and Fox applied max leverage to tank his trading value in exchange for a 4 year max extension commitment, we just got to know the second half of the deal

-Nobody ever questioned that Fox was worth his current contract which is a 25% cap max deal, so at the very worst this is an overpay by around 8/9M$ a year, FO estimated that they could live with that in exchange for getting Fox for minimal assets

-"but now we have Harper': if we were good with Fox before the lottery we are even better now with Harper on top, this is a rich man problem to have and as much as I believe in Dylan thats not reasonable at all to expect him to be as good within 2/3 years as Fox, a consensus top 30 player and top 8 lead guard when he was fully healthy in 22-24

-Obviously, if Harper develops as we hope we'll need to make room for him on the court and on the spreadsheet by 2029 at the latest, at this time Fox will have just 1 year left so barring crazy injuries or dramatic level drop his contract will be movable, there will always be a mid team lacking talent at that position willing to pay a 30/31yo Fox.

-In the meantime we will be able to compete way better than with just starting DH, the young guys will have the opportunity to gain some PO experience earlier, we keep Victor happy, and if everything clicks we might contend as soon as 27. All of that with keeping our future assets quasi untouched (2 real first picks)

All in all, a solid move short and long term wise in my opinion. Would I have preferred a flat 200/4 effectively decreasing from 30 to 25% cap over its course ? Yeah sure that would have been ideal but we dont always get exactly what we want, and this is a reasonable compromise.

[twodeep]

Few thoughts:

-Trade ('YEAH CRAZY BARGAIN') and extension ("OMG OVERPAY") have to be considered as a package, it's obvious that Rich Paul and Fox applied max leverage to tank his trading value in exchange for a 4 year max extension commitment, we just got to know the second half of the deal

-Nobody ever questioned that Fox was worth his current contract which is a 25% cap max deal, so at the very worst this is an overpay by around 8/9M$ a year, FO estimated that they could live with that in exchange for getting Fox for minimal assets

-"but now we have Harper': if we were good with Fox before the lottery we are even better now with Harper on top, this is a rich man problem to have and as much as I believe in Dylan thats not reasonable at all to expect him to be as good within 2/3 years as Fox, a consensus top 30 player and top 8 lead guard when he was fully healthy in 22-24

-Obviously, if Harper develops as we hope we'll need to make room for him on the court and on the spreadsheet by 2029 at the latest, at this time Fox will have just 1 year left so barring crazy injuries or dramatic level drop his contract will be movable, there will always be a mid team lacking talent at that position willing to pay a 30/31yo Fox.

-In the meantime we will be able to compete way better than with just starting DH, the young guys will have the opportunity to gain some PO experience earlier, we keep Victor happy, and if everything clicks we might contend as soon as 27. All of that with keeping our future assets quasi untouched (2 real first picks)

All in all, a solid move short and long term wise in my opinion. Would I have preferred a flat 200/4 effectively decreasing from 30 to 25% cap over its course ? Yeah sure that would have been ideal but we dont always get exactly what we want, and this is a reasonable compromise.

Nailed it people are overreacting

[cutewizard]

Only an emotionally unintelligent person would think not maxing Fox was rational, because their is a human element to the nba beyond just what happens on the basketball court. Fox and his agent did the Spurs a MASSIVE favor by forcing their way out of Sac and making the Spurs the only destination. Had the Spurs tried to play any type of hardball with Fox he would have been both the first player to try and force their way to the Spurs and the last, because any other player is going to look at the situation and say "yeah no, not going to try to force myself to a place that will then turn around and play hardball with me because they drafted a guard who might legit never even be as good as I am right now."

Real life isn't Nba2k.

The actual irrational thing to do would be to draft a guy number 2 and then tell the star player you traded for who is way better than the player you drafted right now you are not going to max him. That would open you up to Fox wanting to leave as soon as he got here ( having Victor like wtf) and put an insane amount of pressure on Harper to be good right now. Like be an all star his rookie year good if you pulled some foolishness like that.

And Fox is clearly a max player. If he hit free agency he would have multiple teams offering him a max contract no questions asked.

On point

[cutewizard]

I'm fine with Fox leading this iteration together with Wemby for the next five years

[kxs783kms]

I still think Harper or Castle are traded before Fox because of this contract. If Fox is a big part of the Spurs winning a ring or two before his contract is up, I don't see him being the one the Spurs let go. If he becomes great friends with Wemby, Wemby isn't going to let them trade him. I really think this is a battle between Castle or Fox on who gets traded first.