Antonio Daniels, Malik Rose
7 millions for Baynes was fine. He's was very good for the Pistons iirc. Never got the perception he was overpaid. Plus he's a workhorse, does the dirty job, great picks, underrated role player big If you ask me. What do you call Gasol and his 16 mill?
Malik fell off a cliff after leaving SA
Jimmer became a beast in the chinese league tbqh
And Money Mase became better because he got his medical degree and a spot in the Players Assoc. He could have cured Mute Cancer if he stayed tbqh
Cory didn't get worse. He just wasn't all that good in the first place. Neal actually had a better season his first year away from the club, especially with Charlotte. Blair fell off a cliff WITH the Spurs. If anything, leaving gave him a bit of an Indian Summer.
Baynes played 15 mpg for Detroit, you don't pay 7 millions per year for a guy that plays 15 mpg, tbh.
Gasol is overpaid too but he's a different level of player. You can't really compare both.
baynes is worth 7 mil for what he's been doing for boston, though DAF is correct that his role on the pistons didn't warrant the money they paid him. boban getting 3/21 was even more egregious
Isn't Gasol nowadays a roleplayer?
My recollection on Baynes failed me. Thought he played more, but that was the time of the twin towers with Greg Monroe and he was insurance i if Monroe walked. Van Gundy not playing him didn't mean he sucked. I watched him a couple of times and he played well. he didn't fall off bc he left the Spurs. His play in Celtics confirms it.
And who said he fell of a cliff?
Yea Boban's deal was the summer of 2016. Lots of really bad deals given out that year.
No, he isn't. That's why he signed for 4 mils per year now. With his current role and contract, Baynes has finally stopped being overpaid, tbh.
You implied he was worse off and overpaid. Don't think he was.
He signed for that bc he's in a good team that's going to be in cap . He could have gotten his 7 mill and still be good value. He wouldn't be on a stack team tho.
Nope, I literally said "overrated and overpaid". I never said anything about becoming less players. In fact, I even said most of them were "decent" players.
I mean there's only a few teams that are legit contenders and Boston may be on the road to be one. That's worth taking a smaller deal than he could have gotten IMO.
Hmm lexicon and semantics. When was Baynes overrated tbh?
When a GM thought he was worth 7 millions per year, tbh.
This is going in circles. He's solid. You don't want to pay that? That's how you get stuck with Jeff Ayers and Joff Lauvergene. Occasionally you get someone for really cheap like a Dedmon, that gives value but that only lasts a short time, specially if the guy is going and not a get ring chaser.
For me, overpaid is someone who doesn't produce. For a solid get big like Baynes, I think he would be worth it. I'd take it inn the Spurs if they could afford him but they can't.
I was comparing their peak play and ideal roles, I wasn't implying that those guys were actually good with the Spurs
I agree about Joseph(used to argue about him frequently here), but he looked better with the Spurs, mostly because they demanded less of him than his new team..he was asked to become a 25 MPG player in Toronto and failed..
Blair was finished with the Spurs towards the end, but he was a solid peripheral player at his peak, mostly a product of Manu..he was never anywhere as good after leaving the Spurs as he was during his peak playing pick&roll with Manu..
You're technically correct about Neal being better after he left, but IIRC, he was dealing with hamstring problems in 2013, and his 2011-2012 season with the Spurs was his best year in the NBA..
Overall, I think it's a silly narrative..If somebody took the time to do the research, I bet the result would be that there isn't any difference between leaving the Spurs magical system vs. leaving other teams IMO(obviously excluding bottom-feeders and situations where a player is asked to play a larger role on a worse team)
Boy, am I glad you're not a GM. We would have paid Baynes $7m for 12 minutes a game, Fathead $10m for nothing, and probably have paid TP.
To me there's no arguing that role players tend to look better on the Spurs. If anything because they get more playing time than in most other teams (or the perfect amount of playing time. Not too little, not too much) and you can't deny that role players tend to look better on more organized structures of play, which the Spurs have had successfully for years.I was comparing their peak play and ideal roles, I wasn't implying that those guys were actually good with the Spurs
I agree about Joseph(used to argue about him frequently here), but he looked better with the Spurs, mostly because they demanded less of him than his new team..he was asked to become a 25 MPG player in Toronto and failed..
Blair was finished with the Spurs towards the end, but he was a solid peripheral player at his peak, mostly a product of Manu..he was never anywhere as good after leaving the Spurs as he was during his peak playing pick&roll with Manu..
You're technically correct about Neal being better after he left, but IIRC, he was dealing with hamstring problems in 2013, and his 2011-2012 season with the Spurs was his best year in the NBA..
Overall, I think it's a silly narrative..If somebody took the time to do the research, I bet the result would be that there isn't any difference between leaving the Spurs magical system vs. leaving other teams IMO(obviously excluding bottom-feeders and situations where a player is asked to play a larger role on a worse team)
How many role players went on to sign great contracts after playing for the Spurs? Danny Green, Patty Mills, Gary Neal, Simmons, Anderson, Splitter, George Hill, Corey Joseph, Boban, Aron Baynes, etc.
And all of them underwhelmed or went on to barely meet expectations. Neither went on to become a clearly better player than what they already were with the Spurs (which was the expectation behind some of the contracts these guys got). At least not for a period of time that could be consider anything more than a fluke.
I agree with that, but I think it applies to any team with a great system and good coaching..the Spurs have a higher volume due to their extended period of success as an organization..
Now granted, there are only like 4-5 teams this applies to every few seasons, but still..
At coaching and system. By far the biggest reason role players often looked better with the Spurs than elsewhere, was because of the big 3. An all-time core, that for as talented as they were, were even better than the sum of their parts because of their IQ, unselfishness and chemistry.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
