...reasonable contract for Kelly Olynyk... ...$8-9 million per year...
Pick one, because $8-9 million for Kelly isn't reasonable, it's insulting
How is it insulting? Market value doesn't mean it's his real value. Just because Bismack Biyombo and Timofey Mozgov get $10 million more doesn't mean we should pay Kelly the same amount. You think Miles Plumlee at $12 million is reasonable?
It is reasonable, for us. Anything more than that is overpaying for an off the bench player at most. He does have range but he doesn't really move the needle as much to make your team a contender. He doesn't offer a big impact on defense.
That should be our offer. If that's insulting to him, then apologize, but stand firm. Would love to keep Kelly, but not for more than that (well, maybe up to $10 million). Let's try and not pay a an off bench player more than that.
KO will be getting at least $14 million x 4 years this off season. Perhaps offers of closer to $16-18 mill x 4 years.
This isn't 2010. We are in a golden era for 3 point shooting big men who can facilitate offense and play defense.
Here is a ranking of our best performing line ups...
you'l notice that with KO at the PF with Horford at C, that is easily our best line up and that's why this lineup usually finishes games with either Bradley or Smart.
Why? Because KO stretches the floor so IT can drive. It gives Al more room inside and it gives us the ability to have a 5 man stretch line up with all 5 guys on the perimeter waiting for IT to penetrate or run pick and pop for IT to penetrate and dish to an open shooter.
Kelly has the footspeed to go and guard a lot of guards in the switch out on the perimeter, whereas no one else on our team other than Jerebko can do this effectively whilst hitting 3's on the other end. Take a look, Kelly is somewhat of a unicorn, and he's still very young and improving...
I'm not saying he's a max player or he's Kevin Love, but to say he's worth 8 or 9 million in today's NBA is actually a bit of an insult ( I know you didn't mean it like that).
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/plus/lineup_finder.cgi?request=1&match=game&lineup_type=5-man&output=total&is_playoffs=N&year_id=2017&team_id=BOS&game_num_min=0&game_num_max=99&order_by=diff_pts
I understand that that is the market value. What I'm saying is that should still be our offer on the table. If it's insulting for him, then so be it, but we shouldn't cave in and pay Kelly $14 million per year, and here's why...
- You're right, this is the age where a big man who can shoot from deep is very valuable. But we just paid one for the max contract. We already have that big.
- We have two first round picks who are coming in next year, both are playing PF and C respectively. One of them (Yabusele) can shoot (or atleast has shown an ability). So why exactly do we need to pay a lot of money for a PF/C when we will have two coming, who combined, can do the things Kelly does, for the rookie scale contract?
- We need to max out Isaiah. And who knows, maybe we're going to acquire a star (Jimmy Butler or Paul George) who will also command a max eventually. We'd also have to pay Marcus Smart and/or Avery Bradley, and they're going to command some dough as well. The Luxury tax could be a killer. Do we really want to carry $14-16 million of Kelly Olynyk as we max out two other guys and pay the more vital ones?
- Yes the game is evolving, and so are the prospects. Every draft class will have big guys who has the ability to shoot now, and we have the assets to be able to acquire one via the draft. Will be cheaper than Kelly's supposed price.
I understand that the money is different now, but we should stand pat and offer nothing less than $10 million per year for Kelly. If he thinks it's too low, let him walk. He's a solid guy to have off the bench, but we can get other options for the cheap, and it helps us save money in case we need it. It might be insulting, but I believe it's the right to do. I'd get it of Kelly can move the needle when it comes to us contending, but he doesn't really move it as much.