Klomp wrote:
It feels good to have three PGs.
Moderators: Domejandro, Worm Guts, Calinks
winforlose wrote:
Assuming we want JMAC back instead of drafting a PG, do we think he will be available at a minimum? Or do we think some other team will want to steal him away? Also do we sign him with bird rights to 4-5 million with the intent of trading him for a 2nd or two at the deadline?
winforlose wrote:
Assuming we want JMAC back instead of drafting a PG, do we think he will be available at a minimum? Or do we think some other team will want to steal him away? Also do we sign him with bird rights to 4-5 million with the intent of trading him for a 2nd or two at the deadline?
winforlose wrote:Assuming we want JMAC back instead of drafting a PG, do we think he will be available at a minimum? Or do we think some other team will want to steal him away? Also do we sign him with bird rights to 4-5 million with the intent of trading him for a 2nd or two at the deadline?
shrink wrote:winforlose wrote:Assuming we want JMAC back instead of drafting a PG, do we think he will be available at a minimum? Or do we think some other team will want to steal him away? Also do we sign him with bird rights to 4-5 million with the intent of trading him for a 2nd or two at the deadline?
I like the way MacLaughlin plays, but his size limits him defensively, and he doesn’t have the offensive volume to be more than a third string PG for most teams, and be a vet min player.
I tend to look at the top 45 PG’s in the league as worthy of more than third string money. Yes, that means #46-60 are technically second stringers, but many teams, particularly bad ones, use their back up PG spot as a place to give run to a first round draft pick. Moreover, the PG spot is less important than ever, with many traditional PG responsibilities being taken on by great players at other positions. If you are running your offense through a SF, the most important quality for the “PG” is to have the size to be a 3-and-D player. That’s not MacLaughlin.
I like him as a third stringer and hope he wants to stay here. But his skillset fits his role, occasional spark off the bench guy to get the offense passing, but okay if he is a DNP-CD some of the time.
winforlose wrote:shrink wrote:winforlose wrote:Assuming we want JMAC back instead of drafting a PG, do we think he will be available at a minimum? Or do we think some other team will want to steal him away? Also do we sign him with bird rights to 4-5 million with the intent of trading him for a 2nd or two at the deadline?
I like the way MacLaughlin plays, but his size limits him defensively, and he doesn’t have the offensive volume to be more than a third string PG for most teams, and be a vet min player.
I tend to look at the top 45 PG’s in the league as worthy of more than third string money. Yes, that means #46-60 are technically second stringers, but many teams, particularly bad ones, use their back up PG spot as a place to give run to a first round draft pick. Moreover, the PG spot is less important than ever, with many traditional PG responsibilities being taken on by great players at other positions. If you are running your offense through a SF, the most important quality for the “PG” is to have the size to be a 3-and-D player. That’s not MacLaughlin.
I like him as a third stringer and hope he wants to stay here. But his skillset fits his role, occasional spark off the bench guy to get the offense passing, but okay if he is a DNP-CD some of the time.
With the minimum approaching 3, is 4 really that far out of the realm of possibility for a 3rd string PG in their prime? I mean sure I would prefer him on a minimum (if we bring him back at all,) but a slight increase above the minimum shouldn’t make him a negative asset.
JMAC’s best positive outside of his high AST/TO is not his shooting, it’s his little ninja hustle. He usually creates 2-3 extra possessions just off the sneaky steals or extra hustle to 50/50 balls. He also has shown an ability to develop a nice two man game with guys like Naz and Dlo. I agree he is a 3rd string, but he isn’t a bad third string.
shrink wrote:winforlose wrote:shrink wrote:I like the way MacLaughlin plays, but his size limits him defensively, and he doesn’t have the offensive volume to be more than a third string PG for most teams, and be a vet min player.
I tend to look at the top 45 PG’s in the league as worthy of more than third string money. Yes, that means #46-60 are technically second stringers, but many teams, particularly bad ones, use their back up PG spot as a place to give run to a first round draft pick. Moreover, the PG spot is less important than ever, with many traditional PG responsibilities being taken on by great players at other positions. If you are running your offense through a SF, the most important quality for the “PG” is to have the size to be a 3-and-D player. That’s not MacLaughlin.
I like him as a third stringer and hope he wants to stay here. But his skillset fits his role, occasional spark off the bench guy to get the offense passing, but okay if he is a DNP-CD some of the time.
With the minimum approaching 3, is 4 really that far out of the realm of possibility for a 3rd string PG in their prime? I mean sure I would prefer him on a minimum (if we bring him back at all,) but a slight increase above the minimum shouldn’t make him a negative asset.
JMAC’s best positive outside of his high AST/TO is not his shooting, it’s his little ninja hustle. He usually creates 2-3 extra possessions just off the sneaky steals or extra hustle to 50/50 balls. He also has shown an ability to develop a nice two man game with guys like Naz and Dlo. I agree he is a 3rd string, but he isn’t a bad third string.
The vet minimum next year is projected to be $2.1, for a player with 2 or more years experience. However, while that’s the cap hit, with five years of experience MacLaughlin will receive $2.4 (with the NBA front office paying him the extra $0.3).
Moreover, vet min exceptions are available to all 30 teams, while a deal greater than that require Bird rights, cap space, or it must come out of some exception. Also, vet min deals can be freely traded, and teams can choose to add, or not add, those salaries in to make trade mechanics work.
If MacLaughlin thinks he is worth more than the vet min, he should shop free agency. I suspect that even if he finds a team that will use cap space/exception money, he’s at the tail end of their wish list, so he should be worrying about staying in the NBA. Some decent players have had to take vet min deals when the money ran out - Dennis Schroeder is a recent example. I suspect we offer him a vet min early, and he accepts, regardless of whether Monte Morris decides to stay or not.
Mamba4Goat wrote:I'd be shocked if anyone offered J-Mac anything more than the min. He's small, physically limited, and an inconsistent/bad shooter. He's got a lot of hustle and is a strong playmaker but I don't think that's enough for a team to give him any meaningful money. Minnesota could give him slightly more than the min and I think it'd be beneficial for both parties due to the familiarity.
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.
Klomp wrote:I'm putting the tired in retired mod at the moment
Klomp wrote:Mamba4Goat wrote:I'd be shocked if anyone offered J-Mac anything more than the min. He's small, physically limited, and an inconsistent/bad shooter. He's got a lot of hustle and is a strong playmaker but I don't think that's enough for a team to give him any meaningful money. Minnesota could give him slightly more than the min and I think it'd be beneficial for both parties due to the familiarity.
Agreed. I could see the modern-day equivalent of when we signed Mark Madsen to a 5-year, $12 million contract.
TimberKat wrote:Klomp wrote:Mamba4Goat wrote:I'd be shocked if anyone offered J-Mac anything more than the min. He's small, physically limited, and an inconsistent/bad shooter. He's got a lot of hustle and is a strong playmaker but I don't think that's enough for a team to give him any meaningful money. Minnesota could give him slightly more than the min and I think it'd be beneficial for both parties due to the familiarity.
Agreed. I could see the modern-day equivalent of when we signed Mark Madsen to a 5-year, $12 million contract.
I don't think we have money left that is below the tax line and Mark Madsen could kick some butts. It's going to be NBA minimum wage.
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.
Klomp wrote:I'm putting the tired in retired mod at the moment
Mamba4Goat wrote:I'd be shocked if anyone offered J-Mac anything more than the min. He's small, physically limited, and an inconsistent/bad shooter. He's got a lot of hustle and is a strong playmaker but I don't think that's enough for a team to give him any meaningful money. Minnesota could give him slightly more than the min and I think it'd be beneficial for both parties due to the familiarity.
Return to Minnesota Timberwolves