Free Agency has started !!
- Thread starter Section 101
- Start date
The only question mark is can Asik give the 25-30 minutes.
If he can, I would absolutely rather pay him 25/3, then to pay DeAndre Jordan 40\4.
Close to a double double (absolutely in rebs, slightly less in points) - 1.5 to 2 blocks per game - and more importantly actually being able unlike Jordan to play fantastic man and team defense and actually anchoring a defense at a high level.
The gamble is again - is he able to play those 25-30 minutes and stay on the floor consistently? - cause if he can, that contract would still be slightly overpaying him, but still be kinda acceptable considering he's a RFA(guarantee overpaying most times then not), and his position/role as a defensive anchor center - which we all know cost premium in this league.
I think people are overacting to this. He showed ability in almost everytime he stepped on the court, and his advance numbers dictate exactly that aswell - You guys would say the same about, for example, Gortat a few years back. It's a gamble on Houston's part, but it's not that big, and it's not that bad at all in my opinion.
If he can, I would absolutely rather pay him 25/3, then to pay DeAndre Jordan 40\4.
Close to a double double (absolutely in rebs, slightly less in points) - 1.5 to 2 blocks per game - and more importantly actually being able unlike Jordan to play fantastic man and team defense and actually anchoring a defense at a high level.
The gamble is again - is he able to play those 25-30 minutes and stay on the floor consistently? - cause if he can, that contract would still be slightly overpaying him, but still be kinda acceptable considering he's a RFA(guarantee overpaying most times then not), and his position/role as a defensive anchor center - which we all know cost premium in this league.
I think people are overacting to this. He showed ability in almost everytime he stepped on the court, and his advance numbers dictate exactly that aswell - You guys would say the same about, for example, Gortat a few years back. It's a gamble on Houston's part, but it's not that big, and it's not that bad at all in my opinion.
Last edited:
I don't think either player is worth the money they are getting. I don't understand the notion of paying a player a huge amount of money based on what you think they "might" be able to do in the future. Asik may be a good player, but has done nothing to prove he is worth that kind of money (the same could have been said about Jordan last year). If it works out they will look smart, but if it doesn't they will be like GS with Beidrens.
Everyone agree they're not worth it.(Some more some less) That's not the issue though.
The issue is, that's just how much those type of players cost and demand in the NBA market - you say he's not worth it, and there's not many of them to go around - fine, don't pay him - someone else will. And then what are you going to do if you want a defensive anchoring big? just not get one ever cause they're all not worth the money they demand?
I agree it's a gamble cause he never proved he can play starter minutes - but I think this is a somewhat good gamble, cause again in the minutes he did play he showed a very high level of play defensively as that anchor - and played so on a winning team too in important moments - again although in flashes - but those were good flashes, that all the advance numbers support to be correct - not to mention that he played behind one of the best defensive centers in the game in Noah that ate up most of the minutes in that position and surely held him back.
I don't agree with the notion that they'll be like Biedrens, or even DeAndre Jordan - simply because I think even if Asik in the minutes he does/will play(not counting injuries etc), will be better then either one of them and showed in his 2 years with the Bulls so far that he's just a better player when he's on the court.
The issue is, that's just how much those type of players cost and demand in the NBA market - you say he's not worth it, and there's not many of them to go around - fine, don't pay him - someone else will. And then what are you going to do if you want a defensive anchoring big? just not get one ever cause they're all not worth the money they demand?
I agree it's a gamble cause he never proved he can play starter minutes - but I think this is a somewhat good gamble, cause again in the minutes he did play he showed a very high level of play defensively as that anchor - and played so on a winning team too in important moments - again although in flashes - but those were good flashes, that all the advance numbers support to be correct - not to mention that he played behind one of the best defensive centers in the game in Noah that ate up most of the minutes in that position and surely held him back.
I don't agree with the notion that they'll be like Biedrens, or even DeAndre Jordan - simply because I think even if Asik in the minutes he does/will play(not counting injuries etc), will be better then either one of them and showed in his 2 years with the Bulls so far that he's just a better player when he's on the court.
Last edited:
I agree that it is a risk that you hope your team won't have to take because you don't want to give that kind of money to an unproven player if it can be avoided. And before you start saying for sure they will be better than Biedrens, remember that he had 3 good years in a row when he averaged 9.5pts, 9.3rbs, 1.7 blks; 10.5pts, 9.8rbs, 1.2blks; & 11.9pts, 11.2rbs, 1.5blks. I don't think Asik or Jordan have come close to those numbers.
But I don't think it's fair to compare to Biedrins, as his type of cases are not the type you can prepare yourself to (injuries, sudden loss of motivation, giving up on himself as a player, loss of confidence)
If Golden State had the old Biedrins, they and every other team in the league at that time would probably give him that contract if we re-do that situation without hindsight.
So I think Jordan is a better case to compare to - and I think again unlike Jordan, Asik is actually proven to be a very good defensive center whenever he was on the floor - not only from the pure numbers perspective (his advanced numbers support that he can be if given the chance, again he played behind Noah for 2 years now) - but just from the eye test in him playing defense in general and anchoring a defense while he's on the floor and his impact on it.
Is it a gamble? yes, cause we just didn't see him play as a starter for an extended period of time.
But did he show very positive signs and actuall ability that he can be a very good defensive center if given the chance? I think he did, so I don't that that's such a big of a gamble or such a bad contract as people are making it out to be - again considering the context.
If Golden State had the old Biedrins, they and every other team in the league at that time would probably give him that contract if we re-do that situation without hindsight.
So I think Jordan is a better case to compare to - and I think again unlike Jordan, Asik is actually proven to be a very good defensive center whenever he was on the floor - not only from the pure numbers perspective (his advanced numbers support that he can be if given the chance, again he played behind Noah for 2 years now) - but just from the eye test in him playing defense in general and anchoring a defense while he's on the floor and his impact on it.
Is it a gamble? yes, cause we just didn't see him play as a starter for an extended period of time.
But did he show very positive signs and actuall ability that he can be a very good defensive center if given the chance? I think he did, so I don't that that's such a big of a gamble or such a bad contract as people are making it out to be - again considering the context.
Last edited:
I guess we will just have to disagree (not completely) on this. I have seen too many players over the years that showed flashes to be a good player in limited minutes that couldn't maintain it with extended minutes. That is why it always scares me to give a big contract to an unproven player. Sometimes it works out well, but when it doesn't and your a small market team with limited resources, it can hurt your team for years. At least contracts are shorter in the new CBA, which should help keep teams from being under a bad contract for years at a time.
While I'm not sure of the details, per an article by Hollinger in ESPN, the first two years are at MLE, and the last one is at max, making the contract very heavily back loaded. Could be wrong here, since he talks about the CBA loophole that allows Houston to do so, but doesn't explicitly mention the numbers for the three years.
If this is indeed the case though, the deal makes lot of sense from Houston's perspective. First two years are a steal of course. Will the huge cost of the last year wash out the gains of the first two?
Perhaps. However, a huge expiring contract, for a decent, defensive minded young big, could be a valuable trading chip. Add some other decent prospect from Houston's stable, some picks, and a GM with a penchant for trades, and he might turn it into a star.
Still long way to go, and no one knows how the dominoes shall fall in the next two years. But, with the deal structured this way, a trade in the final year could work.
If this is indeed the case though, the deal makes lot of sense from Houston's perspective. First two years are a steal of course. Will the huge cost of the last year wash out the gains of the first two?
Perhaps. However, a huge expiring contract, for a decent, defensive minded young big, could be a valuable trading chip. Add some other decent prospect from Houston's stable, some picks, and a GM with a penchant for trades, and he might turn it into a star.
Still long way to go, and no one knows how the dominoes shall fall in the next two years. But, with the deal structured this way, a trade in the final year could work.
If Batum goes to Minny, I wonder if we should trade MT for one of their SFs.
As I've mentioned in the past, we should explore trade options for MT. I like him, and would rather trade someone else. However, no one else shall fetch anything reasonable. There is just no place in our roster for 3 undersized guards in IT, Jimmer and MT, only one of whom has so far shown the ability to run point.
While MT is an explosive scorer who can't be replaced easy, I've always been queasy about his tunnel vision and selfishness, along with his tendencies to go for the steals instead of playing disciplined defense. If we get a good SF, some of MT's minutes can go to Cisco/Salmons, who can partially compensate for lack of scoring by more disciplined defense while providing additional size. Plus, Reke can move to 2, when IT/Jimmer are on the court. Hopefully, the upgrade at SF can provide some of the outside shooting MT gave us.
I had earlier proposed trading MT to Bulls for one of their bigs. They needed a scoring SG, and with DR out/rehabbing, this need increased. However, with us getting TR, and them losing Asik, this has become meaningless. Trade with Minny might make more sense.
As I've mentioned in the past, we should explore trade options for MT. I like him, and would rather trade someone else. However, no one else shall fetch anything reasonable. There is just no place in our roster for 3 undersized guards in IT, Jimmer and MT, only one of whom has so far shown the ability to run point.
While MT is an explosive scorer who can't be replaced easy, I've always been queasy about his tunnel vision and selfishness, along with his tendencies to go for the steals instead of playing disciplined defense. If we get a good SF, some of MT's minutes can go to Cisco/Salmons, who can partially compensate for lack of scoring by more disciplined defense while providing additional size. Plus, Reke can move to 2, when IT/Jimmer are on the court. Hopefully, the upgrade at SF can provide some of the outside shooting MT gave us.
I had earlier proposed trading MT to Bulls for one of their bigs. They needed a scoring SG, and with DR out/rehabbing, this need increased. However, with us getting TR, and them losing Asik, this has become meaningless. Trade with Minny might make more sense.
How can the Nets afford to take on Joe Johnson's max deal, re-sign Gerald Wallace for $10 million per year, re-sign DWill to a max deal, and trade for Dwight Howard's max deal? Doesn't that put them close to $70 million dollars for 4 players?! I realize their owner can probably print his own money but if this is the result of the lockout than nothing at all was accomplished.
No, you're right. In a sane world Nicolas Batum signs a contract for $6-8 million per year. He hasn't even proven that he can produce as a full-time starter yet. But GMs don't offer contracts based on current production, they offer contracts based on how badly they want a certain player and how much other GMs are willing to spend to make sure you don't get them. Batum is in the perfect position of having obvious potential but also a pretty short track record. It's the same reason why freshmen tend to fill up the top spots in the draft while sophmores (like Barnes and Sullinger) and juniors (like Thomas Robinson) slide. When you're an unproven commodity your weaknesses haven't been picked apart yet.
The other factor working in Batum's favor is that every team in the league wants a guy who can defend at a high level and also hit spot-up threes. 10 years ago San Antonio could re-sign Bruce Bowen for next to nothing because he's not a star but everyone is onto their game by now to such an extent that roleplayers with desirable skills are almost overvalued. So yeah, I agree with you that overpaying Batum by about $4 million dollars a year is insane. But so is spening $17 million dollars a year on 3 SFs who actually make you worse rather than better. In that context, $12.5 million is actually a better alternative than what we're doing right now. We've been playing 4 on 5 basketball for at least 2 years now. It's about time we paid the going rate in today's NBA and won some games. It's LA, New York, and Boston's money we're spending anyway right?
The other factor working in Batum's favor is that every team in the league wants a guy who can defend at a high level and also hit spot-up threes. 10 years ago San Antonio could re-sign Bruce Bowen for next to nothing because he's not a star but everyone is onto their game by now to such an extent that roleplayers with desirable skills are almost overvalued. So yeah, I agree with you that overpaying Batum by about $4 million dollars a year is insane. But so is spening $17 million dollars a year on 3 SFs who actually make you worse rather than better. In that context, $12.5 million is actually a better alternative than what we're doing right now. We've been playing 4 on 5 basketball for at least 2 years now. It's about time we paid the going rate in today's NBA and won some games. It's LA, New York, and Boston's money we're spending anyway right?
I'm intrigued by DW though. Doubt if they shall give up on him so quick, but they seem to be collecting SFs at a rapid pace, and seem to be short on SGs.
We need to find a SF another way. Either than or hope that Outlaw re-discovers his mojo and becomes a serviceable player for us.
I was all for giving a strong offer to Batum, but I really didn't think the bidding would start at over $12 million a year. That's crazy money.
While I don't think the Maloofs have the willingness to spend money to properly fill holes in this roster, I certainly won't criticize them for not jumping into the bidding wars that are currently going on. Gerald Wallace's contract strikes me as somewhat reasonable but everything else that's coming out now (Batum, Asik, Hibbert) is irresponsible spending. I'd love to have Batum OR Hibbert, but not at those prices. And Asik was a guy I thought might be a great low cost pickup. And he would have been if his salary was in keeping with his production but the numbers quoted mean he's being drastically overvalued/overpaid.
Last offseason in the NFL you saw a similar feeding frenzy when the lockout lifted and free agency began. And 49ers fans were deeply critical of the team for not being aggressive. But instead they waited out the initial craziness and did some very good bargain shopping. Signing Braylon Edwards was a gamble that didn't pay off, but it cost them very little and had the potential to be a steal. But other moves, like resigning Dashon Goldson when he didn't get a huge payday elsewhere was an absolute coup.
And that's the type of offseason I hope the Kings have. Make a trade (maybe either Jimmer/Hayes + Cisco's expiring OR Thornton) and make some shrewd signings (overlooked roleplayers, a perfect fit SF in Kirilenko etc) and come out of this offseason with a more balanced roster without overpaying. I'd love to see that.
But of course, that does mean trusting the Maloofs to even okay that level of spending. I'll give them a pass on not getting in bidding wars for the Nashs, Batums and especially Asiks of the world, but if they just stand pat or especially if they lose Thompson and just do enough to fill out the roster and meet the salary floor I'll be less than pleased.
But not surprised.
While I don't think the Maloofs have the willingness to spend money to properly fill holes in this roster, I certainly won't criticize them for not jumping into the bidding wars that are currently going on. Gerald Wallace's contract strikes me as somewhat reasonable but everything else that's coming out now (Batum, Asik, Hibbert) is irresponsible spending. I'd love to have Batum OR Hibbert, but not at those prices. And Asik was a guy I thought might be a great low cost pickup. And he would have been if his salary was in keeping with his production but the numbers quoted mean he's being drastically overvalued/overpaid.
Last offseason in the NFL you saw a similar feeding frenzy when the lockout lifted and free agency began. And 49ers fans were deeply critical of the team for not being aggressive. But instead they waited out the initial craziness and did some very good bargain shopping. Signing Braylon Edwards was a gamble that didn't pay off, but it cost them very little and had the potential to be a steal. But other moves, like resigning Dashon Goldson when he didn't get a huge payday elsewhere was an absolute coup.
And that's the type of offseason I hope the Kings have. Make a trade (maybe either Jimmer/Hayes + Cisco's expiring OR Thornton) and make some shrewd signings (overlooked roleplayers, a perfect fit SF in Kirilenko etc) and come out of this offseason with a more balanced roster without overpaying. I'd love to see that.
But of course, that does mean trusting the Maloofs to even okay that level of spending. I'll give them a pass on not getting in bidding wars for the Nashs, Batums and especially Asiks of the world, but if they just stand pat or especially if they lose Thompson and just do enough to fill out the roster and meet the salary floor I'll be less than pleased.
But not surprised.
Jared Zwerling: From a source very close to Marcus Camby: "He wants to go to a team for a starting job if he can. That’s his priority. But NY is an option."
Read more: http://hoopshype.com/twitter/media.html#ixzz1zUO9E3we
plan b incase JT gets an unmatchable offer?
defensive shot blocking big to play alongside cousins while trob gets accustomed to nba life. also read he still prefers houston but if we can offer him a starting job as well as a decent contract while houston waits for asik to answer there offer, maybe we can steal him away before the 3 day waiting period. considering his age, maybe a 2 year contract that will hopefully leave us some room for a quality sf.
Read more: http://hoopshype.com/twitter/media.html#ixzz1zUO9E3we
plan b incase JT gets an unmatchable offer?
defensive shot blocking big to play alongside cousins while trob gets accustomed to nba life. also read he still prefers houston but if we can offer him a starting job as well as a decent contract while houston waits for asik to answer there offer, maybe we can steal him away before the 3 day waiting period. considering his age, maybe a 2 year contract that will hopefully leave us some room for a quality sf.
