Omer Asik is not the third in the next Big Three....

[BballTim]

This thread.

Omer Asik at his very best is a great role player. Even a solid sixth man (in the form of a big man who rebounds), but nothing beyond that. Him being the third star in a Big 3 is out of question.

I'd imagine a perfect lineup (or at least a great one) being as follows: Rondo-Someone who can shoot-Carmelo-Love-Asik, where Asik is your solid big man who is underrated, but actually helps the team in big ways.

Of course, that is if we can get Love and Carmelo.

My lord, somebody who actually understands!

As mentioned above I'm not by any means saying Asik is a terrible / useless player.  Of course he has strong aspects to his game and contribute to a team in ways beyond what his stats may show.

BUT the fact remains that he is a pure role player, and makes WAY too much money for what he offers.  Bringing in Asik at the $15M he's due next season would be equivalent to the Thunder signing Perkins to that $10M+ salary when they go him in the trade.  If not for Perk, they might have had the cap space to keep Harden...and tha twould have completely changed their team dynamic.  Now they are somewhat crippled because they are paying 'good starter' money to a guy who is nothing more than a role player.

If Boston gets Asik at $15M they are playing All-Star money for a guy who is an overglorified role player and barely good enough to be a starting center.  The idea of getting Love and then brigning in a third star in addition to Asik isn't an option, because with Rondo/Love/Asik Boston would have no cap space to sign another star.

He's not the third in the big 3, but he is a very good player that will make our team better. If we are going to have a third great player, it will probably come later on when we have cap space or by using the picks we have left.

You talk about signing Asik as if there is no Salary cap in the NBA.  "Who cares if he's due $15M, he can defend and rebound and will help the team!".  Fact is that he woudl take up almost 1/3 of Boston's salary cap, and in no world/universe/galaxy/dimension is Asik good enough to justify that type of financial commitment.  With Asik on this team, there would be no cap space...and there would been third great player.

Asik makes $15 million, but his cap hit is only $8.4m.  Wyk Grousbeck may care about that, but fans and Danny Ainge don't.  That's 13% of the cap, not 33% as you said.  That's well worth it for a center who plays good defense and rebounds well despite limited offensive ability.

  I'd guess Danny does because he has to operate within a budget.

But it's a flexible budget.  Wyc has been willing to spend well over the luxury tax threshold in the past and Asik's extra salary wont be taxed.  I doubt it would be an obstacle if they can build a competitive team.

  Other than future season implications the extra salary isn't any different from a tax itself. He's basically paying Asik for games he played when he was on Houston.

[knuckleballer]

  Other than future season implications the extra salary isn't any different from a tax itself. He's basically paying Asik for games he played when he was on Houston.
[/quote]

What future season implications?

[BballTim]

  I mean the repeater tax. Aside from that there's no difference between that extra salary we're paying Asik and a luxury tax for the same amount. You're paying money that's not really going into your current team.

[NYDan]

I'll take Asik .....until Marc Gasol becomes available

Pretty much how I feel about the debate. Asik would help shore up the C position for a year if we end up jumpstarting the turnaround with trades but Marc Gasol has to be the dream once his contract is up next year. Whatever moves we do make it shouldn't hinder us from being players in FA come 2015.

[crimson_stallion]

I think he can average a solid 8, 10 and 1, but that isn't third option numbers.

Well, there's your problem. You're looking at the numbers, not the impact. He's one of the best defensive centers in the NBA.

You don't win in the NBA by limiting the amount of points your opponent is scoring.  You win in the NBA by ensuring your opponent scores less than you.

See, having a big man who can potentially hold Demarcus Cousins to 14 points might seem impressive...until you realise that your own big man only scored 6.

That's why investing in Asik as your 3rd or 4th highest paid player is a big no-no.  Unless the rest of your team is dominant enough offensively to negate his offensive limitations (which Boston's certainly are not) this approach just won't work.  Yes Boston wen't far with Kendrick Perkins as a starting center - but Boston also had Ray Allen, Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett in their starting lineup.  Now they have Avery Bradley, Jeff Green and Jarred Sullinger.  Big difference.

  The one season Asik was a full time starter he averaged 10 ppg with a good fg% and his team's defense was about 7 ppg better when he played than when he was on the bench.

What about their offense?

[BballTim]

I think he can average a solid 8, 10 and 1, but that isn't third option numbers.

Well, there's your problem. You're looking at the numbers, not the impact. He's one of the best defensive centers in the NBA.

You don't win in the NBA by limiting the amount of points your opponent is scoring.  You win in the NBA by ensuring your opponent scores less than you.

See, having a big man who can potentially hold Demarcus Cousins to 14 points might seem impressive...until you realise that your own big man only scored 6.

That's why investing in Asik as your 3rd or 4th highest paid player is a big no-no.  Unless the rest of your team is dominant enough offensively to negate his offensive limitations (which Boston's certainly are not) this approach just won't work.  Yes Boston wen't far with Kendrick Perkins as a starting center - but Boston also had Ray Allen, Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett in their starting lineup.  Now they have Avery Bradley, Jeff Green and Jarred Sullinger.  Big difference.

  The one season Asik was a full time starter he averaged 10 ppg with a good fg% and his team's defense was about 7 ppg better when he played than when he was on the bench.

What about their offense?

  A point or two better when he was playing.

[Evantime34]

I personally don't think Carmelo Anthony will be with the Knicks next year. IF the Knicks are going into full rebuild mode I think Tyson Chandler as  the defensive anchor of the Celtics would be the perfect third banana.

[playdream]

I personally don't think Carmelo Anthony will be with the Knicks next year. IF the Knicks are going into full rebuild mode I think Tyson Chandler as  the defensive anchor of the Celtics would be the perfect third banana.

Tyson is old and injured, he isn't good anymore..

[Fafnir]

I personally don't think Carmelo Anthony will be with the Knicks next year. IF the Knicks are going into full rebuild mode I think Tyson Chandler as  the defensive anchor of the Celtics would be the perfect third banana.

Chandler worked so well because he was a beast in the pick and roll as the roll man. Demanded so much defensive effort and attention.

He's lost that with his injures, at least he doesn't have it consistently anymore. I wouldn't want to be counting on him going forward.

I think Carmelo stays and just takes the money though.

[footey]

I think Asik will cost $10-11 million a year on his next deal. So ... I don't think there will be any Big Threes (on max to near max contracts) with a fourth option like Asik earning that much money.

I think it will have to be a different type of roster construct than that.

Say something like (a) the 2004 Pistons where you have a top tier defense, a balanced starting five and one of the best benches in the league. Or (b) something like a Big Four where you have 1-2 players on max or near max contracts and then two players who are below All-Star level earning around $10 million a piece. Sort of like Chris Paul's Hornets when he had David West, Tyson Chandler and Peja Stojakovic (who unfortunately fell off early into their time together). So say Rondo, Kevin Love (2nd max money guy), Omer Asik and 4th guy around Paul Millsap / Lamar Odom / Klay Thompson level performer.

Hoping you meant Lamar "in his prime" Odom, not current one.

[Fafnir]

4th guy around Paul Millsap / Lamar Odom / Klay Thompson level performer.

Hoping you meant Lamar "in his prime" Odom, not current one.

He's talking about almost all-star level producers, so when Odom was 6th man of the year.

[footey]

Problem with Asik is that he is so inept offensively, you need that much more scoring from the other positions.  Given Rondo's poor outside shot, this is only exacerbated.

That is why I'm hoping that Embiid somehow drops to Milwaukee, and they agree to trade Larry Sanders to us on draft night. Get more out of the 5 position that way.

[Fafnir]

Problem with Asik is that he is so inept offensively, you need that much more scoring from the other positions.  Given Rondo's poor outside shot, this is only exacerbated.

That is why I'm hoping that Embiid somehow drops to Milwaukee, and they agree to trade Larry Sanders to us on draft night. Get more out of the 5 position that way.

Larry Sanders is even worse offensively than Asik.

He's only shot above 50% once in his four years (his break out year at 50.6%), Asik has never shot under 50% in a season. The career offensive rating of Asik is 105, for Sanders its 101.

[Who]

Problem with Asik is that he is so inept offensively, you need that much more scoring from the other positions.  Given Rondo's poor outside shot, this is only exacerbated.

That is why I'm hoping that Embiid somehow drops to Milwaukee, and they agree to trade Larry Sanders to us on draft night. Get more out of the 5 position that way.

Larry Sanders is even worse offensively than Asik.

He's only shot above 50% once in his four years (his break out year at 50.6%), Asik has never shot under 50% in a season. The career offensive rating of Asik is 105, for Sanders its 101.

I prefer L.Sanders to Asik offensively.

Both low skilled offensive players but Larry Sanders has much more quickness and athleticism. Makes him a more dangerous scorer in transition, on cuts (and pick and rolls) and when finishing around the basket. His leaping ability in particular makes Sanders a hell of a threat on lob passes which he would certainly get a ton of playing next to Rondo.

Asik's main advantage is his screening ability.

Other than that, I think they are fairly equal in offensive ability. Passing ability. Jump-shooting. Low post scoring. Face up game.

Sanders just needs to cut back a bit on those jump-shots.

[Who]

4th guy around Paul Millsap / Lamar Odom / Klay Thompson level performer.

Hoping you meant Lamar "in his prime" Odom, not current one.

He's talking about almost all-star level producers, so when Odom was 6th man of the year.

Yep, when Odom was a top 10 power forward in the league for several seasons but was never an All-Star. The type of player who usually commands somewhere around $10 million per annum.

If you have Asik and you are paying him the $10-12 million he'll likely command on his next contract, then I think you need another low level star (like Odom was) in that pay range ... to put alongside Rondo's and K-Love's max money deals.

A Big Four combination rather than a Big Three.

Swap out a third max contract for two lesser but still very good players earning around $10 million a year each. I think that is way Ainge will have to go if he trades for Asik (who will be too expensive to keep alongside three max money contracts).