Tatum has more value than Smart + Brown
Tatum has superstar potential.
Brown has fringe star potential.
Smart is a career role player.
So you’d trade Brown and Smart? Would you still go after Kyrie with Davis, Horford, Hayward and Tatum?
Kyrie is a given under any circumstance. He is a 2nd All-NBA Team star in his prime - you sign him to a max even if you absolutely hate him. He is much better than our other two max players.
I assume what LB is saying is that if NOP views Brown and Tatum equally, that is awesome. You trade Brown and Smart (plus whatever) for AD and you still have your number one asset to either build around or trade. I love JB - he is probably my current favorite Celtic - but even I realize that Tatum has more value, not even including the extra year left on his rookie contract.
I think the All-NBA selection these days are kinda sketchy. You have guys like Rudy Gobert, Deandre Jordan and Carlos Boozer making the team. Signing a guy who fail to lead a team in the playoffs into a max could be mistake. You have teams like Washington, OKC and Grizzlies crippling their cap because of signing guys that aren't even max worthy. Jazz will regret signing Gobert with Super Max.
Max salary should only be spent with proven MVP caliber players who can lead their team deep into the playoffs.
That's just not how it works though, and if you try to do that you'll lose all your All-Star level talent in free agency
Yeah, really. And, I'm confused, are we saying that Kyrie is not one of those guys? He's clearly deserving of a max contract, even a super-max (but the CBA doesn't allow that - so much for Boston's advantage). Even if you say every team should only have one max contract guy, you still get 30 of those in the league. Two per team even sounds reasonable (we had 3 this past year, could have 4 next), which gives you 60. More than half of those would not even be All-Stars.
Again, how did those supermax turned out for their teams? Sure, you get to retain your supposedly star player, but you also kill your chance your chance to improve your team by signing better supporting casts. In short, you are stuck in purgatory. Steph actually led Warriors a ship before he was signed into supermax contract. Warriors was smart to so sign him into a bargain deal before he became an MVP caliber player.
What did guys like Wall and Westbrook did to their respective franchise as supermax players? I wouldn't consider Westbrook a true MVP because he failed to lead his team deep in the playoffs. I have no problem teams signing players to supermax, only if they truly deserve it.
If people were hesistant to bring IT brinks truck back then, it shouldn't be different with Kyrie who performed much worse when we needed him the most.
There should be an actual scale price range when recent performance before free agency is in question.
Tier 1 = Supermax (MVP caliber players)
Tier 2 = Max players (Fringe All-Stars/All-NBA/DPOY players)
Tier 3 = All-Defensive teamers/ 6MOY
Tier 4 = Solid role players
Tier 5 = MLE
Tier 6 = Vet min
There is no way Kyrie belongs in the supermax discussion. Max extension, maybe but the team have already peaked, unless there are major changes within. Either within the coaching system or supporting casts.
I really have no idea what your point is. Should we let Kyrie walk because you don't think he's worth the contract?
Your tiers are nice, but for the fact that the CBA already has an eligibility criteria for the super-max:
1) Named to an All-NBA (first, second, or third) team in the previous season, or in two of the last three seasons.
2) Named Defensive Player of the Year in the previous season, or two of the last three seasons.
3) Named NBA MVP in one of the last three seasons.
Is it better for teams to just let their players walk because they're not MVP caliber guys? Especially small-market teams, which is one of the primary reasons as to why the super-max was even created? That is just terrible asset management.
Literally every single fan should want us to resign Kyrie, even if it's just so that we can trade him later when his value would be higher (as a contracted player). It makes literally no sense to lose him for nothing.
Depends on how much you're going to sign him. Nobody was willing to take John Wall or Westbrook's massive contracts. Definitely nobody would take Gobert's supermax contract if he ever signed for one. Even teams were hesitant to take Carmelo's contract until the Hawks bought him out. Conley's contract now is not much painful to absorb anymore because it only have 2 years left.
If you are going to sign Kyrie for 5 year/300 million contract and they bounce on 2nd round again, welcome to mediocrity because there's no way to improve the roster now that the cap is crippled. And teams will be more hesitant to trade for him because of the steep price tag.
He's no Lebron, KD or Lebron or even Steph. We can easily develop or find cheaper pgs who could develop into a star. We don't even need to develop him into a franchise player, just good enough player that will fit into the team. We can just simply replace him with role players who could possibly boost the development of Brown and Tatum if ever Danny decided to go with that route.
Talented point guards are dimes a dozens in this league. The return for Rondo when we traded him wasn't exactly much of a haul either even though it is part of what leads into IT and Kyrie trade.
Trading for AD before signing him would be the best move if you want to keep him. Otherwise, find a buyer before signing him then trade him later, ala Blaker Griffin. Cap flexibility is more important than retaining a not-good enough talent/fit.
Topic: Scenario: Tatum or Brown+Smart (Read 4872 times)