League executive predicts Khris Middleton will receive $15mill/season

[Roy H.]

We need to trade for someone or sign someone with our cap space this offseason. If the narrative from the media or fans is that it is an overpay than so be it.

So says the Knicks.

And Joe Dumars.

Again, that's not even close to the same.

Sure it is.  Committing large contracts to role players is NBA folly, regardless of whether a lot of other teams will have cap space.

Many of the "waste max dollars on middling talent" folks don't understand that although many teams will have cap space, the Celtics could have more than anybody else.  It's not like they have to overspend or face the prospect of being on a level playing ground.

[Forza Juventus]

We need to trade for someone or sign someone with our cap space this offseason. If the narrative from the media or fans is that it is an overpay than so be it.

So says the Knicks.

And Joe Dumars.

Again, that's not even close to the same.

Sure it is.  Committing large contracts to role players is NBA folly, regardless of whether a lot of other teams will have cap space.

Many of the "waste max dollars on middling talent" folks don't understand that although many teams will have cap space, the Celtics could have more than anybody else.  It's not like they have to overspend or face the prospect of being on a level playing ground.

I see this attitude with the fan bases of all the teams around here. Do people actually want to be good? Or do they just want to out smart everyone with moneyball crap? Moneyball is a myth created by owners to spend less money. For example the luxury tax is much less of a big deal than it is made out to be. Owners have tricked fans forever.

[wdleehi]

We need to trade for someone or sign someone with our cap space this offseason. If the narrative from the media or fans is that it is an overpay than so be it.

So says the Knicks.

And Joe Dumars.

Again, that's not even close to the same.

Sure it is.  Committing large contracts to role players is NBA folly, regardless of whether a lot of other teams will have cap space.

Many of the "waste max dollars on middling talent" folks don't understand that although many teams will have cap space, the Celtics could have more than anybody else.  It's not like they have to overspend or face the prospect of being on a level playing ground.

I see this attitude with the fan bases of all the teams around here. Do people actually want to be good? Or do they just want to out smart everyone with moneyball crap? Moneyball is a myth created by owners to spend less money. For example the luxury tax is much less of a big deal than it is made out to be. Owners have tricked fans forever.

Good yes.


Overspending on players like Middleton does not lead to good.  It leads to the Knicks.   


This has nothing to do with the owners.   It has everything to do with the salary cap.  (something Baseball does not have)

With a salary cap, teams need to be smart with their money. 

[Roy H.]

We need to trade for someone or sign someone with our cap space this offseason. If the narrative from the media or fans is that it is an overpay than so be it.

So says the Knicks.

And Joe Dumars.

Again, that's not even close to the same.

Sure it is.  Committing large contracts to role players is NBA folly, regardless of whether a lot of other teams will have cap space.

Many of the "waste max dollars on middling talent" folks don't understand that although many teams will have cap space, the Celtics could have more than anybody else.  It's not like they have to overspend or face the prospect of being on a level playing ground.

I see this attitude with the fan bases of all the teams around here. Do people actually want to be good? Or do they just want to out smart everyone with moneyball crap? Moneyball is a myth created by owners to spend less money. For example the luxury tax is much less of a big deal than it is made out to be. Owners have tricked fans forever.

I'm not anti-spending.  I'm anti-spending-stupidly.

[Forza Juventus]

We need to trade for someone or sign someone with our cap space this offseason. If the narrative from the media or fans is that it is an overpay than so be it.

So says the Knicks.

And Joe Dumars.

Again, that's not even close to the same.

Sure it is.  Committing large contracts to role players is NBA folly, regardless of whether a lot of other teams will have cap space.

Many of the "waste max dollars on middling talent" folks don't understand that although many teams will have cap space, the Celtics could have more than anybody else.  It's not like they have to overspend or face the prospect of being on a level playing ground.

I see this attitude with the fan bases of all the teams around here. Do people actually want to be good? Or do they just want to out smart everyone with moneyball crap? Moneyball is a myth created by owners to spend less money. For example the luxury tax is much less of a big deal than it is made out to be. Owners have tricked fans forever.

I'm not anti-spending.  I'm anti-spending-stupidly.

How much money do you think Middleton or Tobias Harris are worth?

[Forza Juventus]

We need to trade for someone or sign someone with our cap space this offseason. If the narrative from the media or fans is that it is an overpay than so be it.

So says the Knicks.

And Joe Dumars.

Again, that's not even close to the same.

Sure it is.  Committing large contracts to role players is NBA folly, regardless of whether a lot of other teams will have cap space.

Many of the "waste max dollars on middling talent" folks don't understand that although many teams will have cap space, the Celtics could have more than anybody else.  It's not like they have to overspend or face the prospect of being on a level playing ground.

I see this attitude with the fan bases of all the teams around here. Do people actually want to be good? Or do they just want to out smart everyone with moneyball crap? Moneyball is a myth created by owners to spend less money. For example the luxury tax is much less of a big deal than it is made out to be. Owners have tricked fans forever.

Good yes.


Overspending on players like Middleton does not lead to good.  It leads to the Knicks.   


This has nothing to do with the owners.   It has everything to do with the salary cap.  (something Baseball does not have)

With a salary cap, teams need to be smart with their money.

I know how the salary cap works.

[loco_91]

He's worth it. Excellent defender and shooter, makes both 3's and mid-range attempts both on the catch and off the dribble. Great advanced stats. As it's been pointed out, $15 is the equivalent of ~$10m after the cap rise, so you aren't breaking the bank.

[Ilikesports17]

We need to trade for someone or sign someone with our cap space this offseason. If the narrative from the media or fans is that it is an overpay than so be it.

So says the Knicks.

And Joe Dumars.

Again, that's not even close to the same.

Sure it is.  Committing large contracts to role players is NBA folly, regardless of whether a lot of other teams will have cap space.

Many of the "waste max dollars on middling talent" folks don't understand that although many teams will have cap space, the Celtics could have more than anybody else.  It's not like they have to overspend or face the prospect of being on a level playing ground.

I see this attitude with the fan bases of all the teams around here. Do people actually want to be good? Or do they just want to out smart everyone with moneyball crap? Moneyball is a myth created by owners to spend less money. For example the luxury tax is much less of a big deal than it is made out to be. Owners have tricked fans forever.

Good yes.


Overspending on players like Middleton does not lead to good.  It leads to the Knicks.   


This has nothing to do with the owners.   It has everything to do with the salary cap.  (something Baseball does not have)

With a salary cap, teams need to be smart with their money.

I know how the salary cap works.

2 words are key to this discussion
1. Max --> this means nothing. Who cares if its max dollars. In a few years Steph Curry will get max dollars which will probably exceed 30 mil per year. Maxing these guys will be 16 mil. "Max dollars" makes it sound like you are destroying your cap when really you are signing them to the modern equivalent of a 11 ish million dollar deal.
2. Overpaying
The crux of this argument is that we overpay for guys then in 2 years that overpay is now a good contract.
It is never good to "overpay" thats by definition bad business, however we dont want to overpay middleton or anyone else, but you can pay based on 2 years from nows cap rather than todays.

If you think Middleton isnt worth 11 mil ((17/108)x67 ) then its not an overpay to give him a max deal. If you think he isnt worth that than fine, then its an overpay.

A lot of people are saying things like max dollars for Middleton is an overpay and their right. I wouldnt want to devote 25% of the cap to Middleton for years to come, but I am just fine with him taking up 15%.

[Roy H.]

The crux of this argument is that we overpay for guys then in 2 years that overpay is now a good contract.
It is never good to "overpay" thats by definition bad business, however we dont want to overpay middleton or anyone else, but you can pay based on 2 years from nows cap rather than todays.

Is sacrificing two years of flexibility with an over-market value contract worth it, to get a guy under contract for (hopefully) fair value in the last two years?

That seems like a silly gamble to me.  If the best case scenario is that we overspent for 50% of the contract, and there's no possibility that Middleton will be a bargain, how is that good for us?  That's without even considering the downside of regression, which is certainly a possibility with a guy who has only been a good defender for one season, in a contract year in a defense-first system.

[Casperian]

1. Max --> this means nothing. Who cares if its max dollars. In a few years Steph Curry will get max dollars which will probably exceed 30 mil per year. Maxing these guys will be 16 mil. "Max dollars" makes it sound like you are destroying your cap when really you are signing them to the modern equivalent of a 11 ish million dollar deal.

In 2009, Ben Gordon signed a 5-year, 55 million dollar contract with the Detroit Pistons.

11 ish

[Ilikesports17]

1. Max --> this means nothing. Who cares if its max dollars. In a few years Steph Curry will get max dollars which will probably exceed 30 mil per year. Maxing these guys will be 16 mil. "Max dollars" makes it sound like you are destroying your cap when really you are signing them to the modern equivalent of a 11 ish million dollar deal.

In 2009, Ben Gordon signed a 5-year, 55 million dollar contract with the Detroit Pistons.

11 ish

Yes you are right on the fact that 11 mil can hurt your cap. I am wrong there.

however, I still think the word max is misleading here and I think its more usefull to say 16 mil here because max deals can mean a lot of different things

[BudweiserCeltic]

The crux of this argument is that we overpay for guys then in 2 years that overpay is now a good contract.
It is never good to "overpay" thats by definition bad business, however we dont want to overpay middleton or anyone else, but you can pay based on 2 years from nows cap rather than todays.

Is sacrificing two years of flexibility with an over-market value contract worth it, to get a guy under contract for (hopefully) fair value in the last two years?

That seems like a silly gamble to me.  If the best case scenario is that we overspent for 50% of the contract, and there's no possibility that Middleton will be a bargain, how is that good for us?  That's without even considering the downside of regression, which is certainly a possibility with a guy who has only been a good defender for one season, in a contract year in a defense-first system.

Signing Middleton to this type of contract does not sacrifice your flexibility. That's the main gist in all of this, this is a risk worth taking because the consequences of failure are minimal.

Let's say we strike out on all our targets, and we can only get Middleton on that type of contract, we should still have about $35-$41 or so million (I'm really throwing numbers around here, as haven't have the time to really breakdown the 2016 salary situation) of cap space to work with next Summer. And keep in mind that I'm not discounting the QO's and team options we may have.

I mean, if that's not flexibility, I don't know what it is then. Going forward our guaranteed commitments are very very low. Spending on Middleton will not damper us any, and might actually open up opportunities for us.

In the following years, with the increase in salary cap (and of player contracts), that's when we have to be more careful on our usage, but not this Summer.

[fairweatherfan]

The crux of this argument is that we overpay for guys then in 2 years that overpay is now a good contract.
It is never good to "overpay" thats by definition bad business, however we dont want to overpay middleton or anyone else, but you can pay based on 2 years from nows cap rather than todays.

Is sacrificing two years of flexibility with an over-market value contract worth it, to get a guy under contract for (hopefully) fair value in the last two years?

That seems like a silly gamble to me.  If the best case scenario is that we overspent for 50% of the contract, and there's no possibility that Middleton will be a bargain, how is that good for us?  That's without even considering the downside of regression, which is certainly a possibility with a guy who has only been a good defender for one season, in a contract year in a defense-first system.

The salary cap is estimated to go up $22 million in 2016-17, and another $19 million in 2017-18, so if there was an overpay, it'd mainly be for one season, not two.  A contract that was 25% of the cap this offseason would be ~18.8% in 16-17 and ~15.5% in 17-18.  A $15 million deal is even better, dropping to 16.8% and 13.7%.  So the math isn't quite as stark as this - a $15 million guy could potentially be just the 4th or 5th highest paid player on the roster in a couple of seasons.  If we're building for 2-3 years from now it's a reasonable idea. 

That said I'm not real enthused with giving Middleton a $15 million deal anyway.  Monroe...maybe.  We shouldn't spend money just to spend it; a lot of teams will make that mistake this summer.  But the proportional cap hit is really just for one season, not two, and by year 3 it's taking up just a bit over 60% of the original cap space.

[tazzmaniac]

The crux of this argument is that we overpay for guys then in 2 years that overpay is now a good contract.
It is never good to "overpay" thats by definition bad business, however we dont want to overpay middleton or anyone else, but you can pay based on 2 years from nows cap rather than todays.

Is sacrificing two years of flexibility with an over-market value contract worth it, to get a guy under contract for (hopefully) fair value in the last two years?

That seems like a silly gamble to me.  If the best case scenario is that we overspent for 50% of the contract, and there's no possibility that Middleton will be a bargain, how is that good for us?  That's without even considering the downside of regression, which is certainly a possibility with a guy who has only been a good defender for one season, in a contract year in a defense-first system.

Middleton could regress but he could also continue to improve.  He's only 23 with 3 NBA seasons compared to Butler who is 25 with 4 NBA seasons. 

I'm not sure why it is being broken down as 2 years overpay and 2 years fair value rather than 1 year overpay and 3 years fair value.  Per the article below, Middleton's MAX salary breaks down as follows.   

                                 2015-16       2016-17      2017-18     2018-19
Middleton Salary       $15.8 mil      $16.5 mil     $17.2 mil    $17.9 mil
% of Cap                     23.5%          18.5%         15.9%       17.9%
2014-15 Equivalent   $14.8 mil      $11.6 mil     $10.1 mil    $11.3 mil

http://nba.derekbodner.com/2015/05/04/the-national-tv-deal-and-how-that-impacts-sixers-upcoming-offseasons/

[Roy H.]

The crux of this argument is that we overpay for guys then in 2 years that overpay is now a good contract.
It is never good to "overpay" thats by definition bad business, however we dont want to overpay middleton or anyone else, but you can pay based on 2 years from nows cap rather than todays.

Is sacrificing two years of flexibility with an over-market value contract worth it, to get a guy under contract for (hopefully) fair value in the last two years?

That seems like a silly gamble to me.  If the best case scenario is that we overspent for 50% of the contract, and there's no possibility that Middleton will be a bargain, how is that good for us?  That's without even considering the downside of regression, which is certainly a possibility with a guy who has only been a good defender for one season, in a contract year in a defense-first system.

Middleton could regress but he could also continue to improve.  He's only 23 with 3 NBA seasons compared to Butler who is 25 with 4 NBA seasons. 

I'm not sure why it is being broken down as 2 years overpay and 2 years fair value rather than 1 year overpay and 3 years fair value.  Per the article below, Middleton's MAX salary breaks down as follows.   

                                 2015-16       2016-17      2017-18     2018-19
Middleton Salary       $15.8 mil      $16.5 mil     $17.2 mil    $17.9 mil
% of Cap                     23.5%          18.5%         15.9%       17.9%
2014-15 Equivalent   $14.8 mil      $11.6 mil     $10.1 mil    $11.3 mil

http://nba.derekbodner.com/2015/05/04/the-national-tv-deal-and-how-that-impacts-sixers-upcoming-offseasons/

You're right, I should have called it an overpay in all 4 years.

Even the $10.1 million equivalent is more than guys like Jeff Green, Luol Deng, Trevor Ariza, Lance Stephenson, Wes Matthews, Arron Afflalo, etc., make.  The only SFs / swingmen who make more than that $10.1 equivalent are Carmelo, Lebron, Joe Johnson, Durant, Paul George, Hayward, Parsons, Batum, and Gallinari (the last three or four of whom are considered to be overpaid).

Is Middleton worth being paid like the 50th - 60th best paid player in the NBA?  Should he be in the top third of all wing players?  That seems insane to me.