How can anyone say Baby is a defensive liability?
Baby is our 2nd best big man defender, behind KG.
Yes he is short, but you can't fault him for that. Blame his parents or god.
but we can't ignore the fact that BBD is indeed short. If Nate were 6'4", i think he'd be better than Dwayne Wade coz he's more athletic and a better shooter and has desire for defense. but he's not. so i guess teams aren't going to clear cap room 2 years in advance to be able to sign him to a max deal.
i can't see how some other posters are willing to give BBD 9mil. if we're gonna go after a big FA two years from now (let's say Dwight Howard or something), i don't want the fact that we have BBD to be an obstruction of that. an MLE-level deal honestly sounds fair. BBD isn't, and will likely never be, 3rd-option material in a contending team. 9mil isn't Rashard Lewis money, but it is Rondo money.
but then again, it's a common thing in this league to overpay for big men or for teams to bid against themselves. i just don't want the Celtics to be in that same boat.
BBD's height is barely relevant when discussing if he is a defensive liability. What actually matters is performance. If he is good enough on defense that his height doesn't come into play, then what is the big deal?
How many times in the past have we put BBD on another teams' tallest, most effective post player, despite the taller KG being available?
If we were talking about someone coming out of college, than we would adjust our opinion of their college performance based on physical traits that might mean their performance won't translate into the NBA. But Baby is already in the NBA. Why would we discount his actual performance due to his lack of height?
BBD is wide and he uses his weight to his advantage, which he rightfully should, but big men with range routinely shoot over him either in the post or in the perimeter. That's why his height matters.
But again, the question at hand is how much would you pay him? 9million? i'm saying MLE, which is around 5.6m, sounds about right especially given his limitations. he's a terrific role player but i wouldnt pay my role player 9mil.
you make it seem as if i am completely discrediting him and his value, while it is actually the contrary. I'm not saying "don't resign him". I'm saying "sign him to a reasonable price" because i don't want us to go overboard. 2 years from now, we will have a lot of cap space. Regardless of the new CBA, i think we would have enough cap space to sign at least one legit superstar to go along with Rondo and Pierce. For example: Dwight Howard. a max contract-level guy. If BBD will be the reason why we can't financially sign Dwight (because of his 9mil contract that extends way beyond the MLE), then i'd much rather have Dwight than BBD. Come to think of it, i will be willing to pay BBD his 9 mil (we have Bird Rights) if it's a one year contract. that way, by end of year 2, he'll still come off the books once more, though BBD probably won't agree.
anyway, my point is financial flexibility.
And on to your other point, there are very few guys who are underpaid. Guys who take the vet min are those in search for a ring (like Shaq and Z). the reason they take the vet min is because the team's they specifically want to join are financially strapped.
Meanwhile, there are a ton of guys who are overpaid and often times, it is obvious to everyone else except for the mgmt that signed them (and to an extent, the teams fans) that the guy is overpaid. Did anyone else think that Dalembert's contract was a bit much when he signed? How about Rashard Lewis? See, we all knew.
of course, i'm working on the assumption that BBD won't be much more than a very good role player. That's how i project him. I think the only reason that a person would be willing to pay him more is if that person honestly believes BBD will be much more than a good role player. I'm curious, what were your thoughts on the Grizzlies signing Conley to a 5-year $45mil contract?
