Around The NBA : 2023-24 Season #2

[jc23]

Getting the #1 seed in the west has really paid off for OKC. BY far the easiest path to the WCF.

[jc23]

wish Game of Zones was still going.

[Indomitable]

9 free throw to 28.

Bron Bron still lost. Denver could not get any calls.

Still they won. I love Jokic but he struggled. Still he could not buy a call.

[Indomitable]

Call me nuts, but Phoenix will run it back.

FWIW, last year Minnesota was beat 4-1 in the 1st rd. last year, with a mediocre 42-40 record after mortgaging their future for Gobert. Difference being they held onto a lot of depth pieces; PHX gave them all up and consolidated for 2 old/injury-prone supermax guys.

But a year of chemistry did help MIN. Beal and Booker obviously had zero chemistry. Beal, Royce and Grayson played their worst basketball ever in this series, and while neither of them are guaranteed to be better next year, the floor to beat is pretty low. Anyway, they could maybe catch Drummond with the MMLE, or somehow figure out Goga, to add to their C depth.

I don't know what the hell they were thinking trading for Beal. $57M in 2027, when he's 34yo -- geezus. I've long thought their trades were terrible, but HEY - as long as you have Durant and Booker healthy, 49 wins is better than 39. Payroll doesn't matter THAT much when the owner is willing to pay whatever. Locking in 30+ year olds with injury history on super maxes while having zero FRP trade flexibility is going to be painful to deal with though.

The difference is Minnesota has a great young player who is in his second playoffs. That is growth.

[ThreeMileAllan]

my personal idea of heaven is to watch God explain to LeBron fans and realGM player Comparison posters that LeBron is not even close to Jordan.

I LOVE WATCHING LEBRON LOSE

Sent from my SM-S918U1 using Tapatalk

[Ice Man]

I haven't yet decided if Denver's series against LA was tight because I have overrated Denver. It's too reliant on one superstar and has a weak bench. Or if the series was tight because once LA found its groove midway through the season, it was a very good team, and it's impressive that Denver took the Lakers out in 5 with Murray mostly struggling.

We'll see which theory is correct soon enough!

[Ice Man]

I love Jokic but he struggled.

Missed the game, but his stat line looks pretty damn good, aside from the 7 TOs. No free throws, LOL.

[dougthonus]

You can use it at times to incrementally get better. For example, when Isaiah Hartenstein was a free agent I wanted the Bulls to sign him, but doing so meant paying the tax. The Knicks signed him to a 2 year 16 million dollar deal. Had the Bulls signed him they'd have a starting level center as their backup, which improves the team and gives them room to negotiate with Vucevic when his contract was up a year later (because they'd have a starter to replace Vucevic if they decided to move on from him).

If you're always restricted due to ownership refusing to pay the tax then that's one less option to improve the team (in hopes of getting into the top 4 or better).

However, I don't think paying the tax is always a good idea. It has to be a move like the Hartenstein example I said above. If a team is bad it's generally better to avoid paying it.

You can always argue spending more improves the team, but the problem is we were 13th and 11th in salary the past two years and 20th in record and missed the playoffs. Trying to go into 2x pay zone on salary when you are already considerably underperforming your current spend and not in the playoffs doesn't make a lot of sense for an owner.

We'd have 0 playoff wins if we spent up to the apron in both years which is where we would have been capped regardless of who you spent that money on. Yes, you might be incrementally better, but that's not better enough to convince anyone when you are situated where the Bulls are.

The time it would make sense to pay the tax and you aren't a playoff team is if paying the tax got you a transformative player, not a backup center.

You may not like that answer, but it's basically how every owner in the league things and behaves. Teams don't pay the tax unless they believe they have a chance at a deep playoff run. At no point in the AKME era has anyone ever believed that.

[dougthonus]

They have one extreme option, and that is to trade Booker and Durant to get assets for their completely barren war chest and rebuild. Beal likely has no value so they would stick with him as the veteran leader for a season, hope he stays healthy and plays well, and maybe you find a taker the following summer.

Given they don't own so many of their own picks that option is extremely grim.

[Ice Man]

You never know. Miami Heat in 2019 had one young keeper (Bam) and little else, either to help them win games or of significant trade value. They haven't landed a stud in the draft since then either. (Tyler Herro has some moments and Jaquez does a few things right, but if you collected 50 of those guys your team still wouldn't be much good.) Yet 2 Finals in the past 4 years, due to -

1) One brilliant FA signing.
2) Several good summer signings.
3) Excellent coaching/organizational consistency.
4) And, to be sure, some good playoff fortunes.

Not predicting that for Phoenix, especially as #3 looks to be lacking, but stranger things have happened ...

[Indomitable]

I love Jokic but he struggled.

Missed the game, but his stat line looks pretty damn good, aside from the 7 TOs. No free throws, LOL.

He got screwed on some calls but he was wild with the ball sometimes.

[Indomitable]

Denver should pick up a Morris/Bayum for next season.

[RSP83]

Call me nuts, but Phoenix will run it back.

FWIW, last year Minnesota was beat 4-1 in the 1st rd. last year, with a mediocre 42-40 record after mortgaging their future for Gobert. Difference being they held onto a lot of depth pieces; PHX gave them all up and consolidated for 2 old/injury-prone supermax guys.

But a year of chemistry did help MIN. Beal and Booker obviously had zero chemistry. Beal, Royce and Grayson played their worst basketball ever in this series, and while neither of them are guaranteed to be better next year, the floor to beat is pretty low. Anyway, they could maybe catch Drummond with the MMLE, or somehow figure out Goga, to add to their C depth.

I don't know what the hell they were thinking trading for Beal. $57M in 2027, when he's 34yo -- geezus. I've long thought their trades were terrible, but HEY - as long as you have Durant and Booker healthy, 49 wins is better than 39. Payroll doesn't matter THAT much when the owner is willing to pay whatever. Locking in 30+ year olds with injury history on super maxes while having zero FRP trade flexibility is going to be painful to deal with though.

The difference is Minnesota has a great young player who is in his second playoffs. That is growth.

Ant Edwards is like a super athlete version of Jimmy Butler. Which is scary good.

[The Explorer]

my personal idea of heaven is to watch God explain to LeBron fans and realGM player Comparison posters that LeBron is not even close to Jordan.

I LOVE WATCHING LEBRON LOSE

Sent from my SM-S918U1 using Tapatalk

For a man who constantly calls himself the GOAT and has a tattoo of 'Chosen One', he has an awful lot of losses on his resume. 4 titles in 21 years with multiple missed playoffs, sweeps, and gentlemen's sweeps.

[HomoSapien]

Read on Twitter

[jnrjr79]

I don't think LBJ would have any desire to come here, but I betcha AK picks up the phone and checks! Would be very on-brand.

I could very much see AK offering something like this in a S&T for LBJ:

Zach + Carter (or even Ayo, ugh) + a 1st

The Bulls become:

Coby
Ayo (if he's not traded, Caruso or Lonzo starts if he is)
DeMar (extended)
LBJ
Vooch

Caruso is your 6th man. Perhaps Lonzo is in the mix if he's actually healthy. Pat Williams plays on the QO or signs elsewhere as an RFA.

Seems very Bulls-y.

[Dan Z]

You can use it at times to incrementally get better. For example, when Isaiah Hartenstein was a free agent I wanted the Bulls to sign him, but doing so meant paying the tax. The Knicks signed him to a 2 year 16 million dollar deal. Had the Bulls signed him they'd have a starting level center as their backup, which improves the team and gives them room to negotiate with Vucevic when his contract was up a year later (because they'd have a starter to replace Vucevic if they decided to move on from him).

If you're always restricted due to ownership refusing to pay the tax then that's one less option to improve the team (in hopes of getting into the top 4 or better).

However, I don't think paying the tax is always a good idea. It has to be a move like the Hartenstein example I said above. If a team is bad it's generally better to avoid paying it.

You can always argue spending more improves the team, but the problem is we were 13th and 11th in salary the past two years and 20th in record and missed the playoffs. Trying to go into 2x pay zone on salary when you are already considerably underperforming your current spend and not in the playoffs doesn't make a lot of sense for an owner.

We'd have 0 playoff wins if we spent up to the apron in both years which is where we would have been capped regardless of who you spent that money on. Yes, you might be incrementally better, but that's not better enough to convince anyone when you are situated where the Bulls are.

The time it would make sense to pay the tax and you aren't a playoff team is if paying the tax got you a transformative player, not a backup center.

You may not like that answer, but it's basically how every owner in the league things and behaves. Teams don't pay the tax unless they believe they have a chance at a deep playoff run. At no point in the AKME era has anyone ever believed that.

I agree with you that it's not a good idea to pay the tax if the team is losing, but my point is that it could be used to incrementally improve the team. Yes, Hartenstein isn't a star player, but he's a starting level center.

I'd be curious to see a list of teams and how many times they've paid the tax since it's inception. A quick search says that the Hornets and Pelicans are the only teams who have never paid it.

https://www.marca.com/en/basketball/nba/2023/09/23/650e2a78268e3e346b8b45a1.html

[dougthonus]

I agree with you that it's not a good idea to pay the tax if the team is losing, but my point is that it could be used to incrementally improve the team. Yes, Hartenstein isn't a star player, but he's a starting level center.

I'd be curious to see a list of teams and how many times they've paid the tax since it's inception. A quick search says that the Hornets and Pelicans are the only teams who have never paid it.

https://www.marca.com/en/basketball/nba/2023/09/23/650e2a78268e3e346b8b45a1.html

Yes, spending more always has the opportunity to incrementally improve the team.

However when factoring out the missed luxury tax pay out and you go $1m into the tax and now lose 15M in payouts + pay $2M, the incremental value you are getting relative to the incremental cost is just a god awful ratio. Say you go 5M into the tax, and you are losing $15M in payouts and paying $10M in cash.

You now are effectively paying $25M for that extra $5M of on court value. If I own a team, the only way I'm ever remotely signing off on that is if your team is going to win rounds in the playoffs and I have a shot at a ring. I'm not paying $25M and extra and losing in the 1st round or being a better lottery team when by the fact that we're talking about it means that I'm already around top 10 in payroll to begin with.

Maybe not all owners think that way, but my guess is the majority do and the exceptions are the people where the value of the franchise is a small part of their net worth.

[FriedRise]

The Suns would've been better off if they got a point guard instead of Bradley Beal. They could've saved themselves some pain and agony if they'd just paid attention to AK's team building failures in doubling down on wing scorers who don't defend without any point guard or interior defense.

They were a 64-win team two seasons ago, but that was because with Chris Paul there, which allowed Booker to focus on just being a scorer. Then they had so many 3&D players up and down their roster who can pick up the slack and chip in for 15-20pts a night. They traded all that depth for KD (kinda hard to argue with that), but then the next moves should've been to replenished their depth - not completely gut their already thin roster for another 3rd scorer who also doesn't defend.

[pylb]

Seems like the Pels will be making some changes.

[x]

Read on Twitter

[/x]

[x]

Read on Twitter

[/x]