Is Dalen Terry an NBA level player?

[League Circles]

Dalen is definitely an nba level player, just not one that ever projects as important, valuable, or worth committing to for more than a one year vet minimum deal.

I think he's quite a good defender and a pretty good ball handler for a 6'7" guy. That's about it though. But he's a decent 3rd string defensive role player to have. Insane that we picked up his 4th year option though.

[DuckIII]

He's definitely improving. I still don't prioritize him as anything other than a guy to eat a few minutes and trade as convenient, but he's showing he can possibly stick in general in some capacity.

[sco]

If there was a deal that brough us back a lottery pick for Pat, I'd feel fine plugging DT into Pat's role (if we didn't just start Matas, which might be preferable, but confuses my point here). I'd say their defense is about equal, maybe DT is better. Pat's 3pt shooting is better, but his volume negates that value. DT is better with the ball in his hands and 100x better around the rim.

[Guru]

I think that DT has 5th starter potential. He was already a good defender, and he has massively improved his handle this offseason with his work. He's become fairly adept at driving the rim and scoring, and his 3pt% is now at 36%. He's a worker, and I love those guys. IMO his handle and finishing ability put him a notch above the Harrison's of the world...he's also bigger, so he can better function as a 3-4.

I said this a year ago and people thought I was trolling.

But I completely agree. He isn't probably going to be a star, but he will fill a role very very well.

[Guru]

If there was a deal that brough us back a lottery pick for Pat, I'd feel fine plugging DT into Pat's role (if we didn't just start Matas, which might be preferable, but confuses my point here). I'd say their defense is about equal, maybe DT is better. Pat's 3pt shooting is better, but his volume negates that value. DT is better with the ball in his hands and 100x better around the rim.

They are different players

[sco]

If there was a deal that brough us back a lottery pick for Pat, I'd feel fine plugging DT into Pat's role (if we didn't just start Matas, which might be preferable, but confuses my point here). I'd say their defense is about equal, maybe DT is better. Pat's 3pt shooting is better, but his volume negates that value. DT is better with the ball in his hands and 100x better around the rim.

They are different players

Sure, but they are both (to me) 5th option scorers who defend. Pat (for argument purposes) has a 3rd option ceiling and is being paid for that, but frankly I'm more skeptical on that than I used to be.

[waffle]

so nice to see him playing SOO MUCH BETTER. Playing within himself. Playing his role. This Terry? Is a valuable bench body

[DuckIII]

If there was a deal that brough us back a lottery pick for Pat, I'd feel fine plugging DT into Pat's role (if we didn't just start Matas, which might be preferable, but confuses my point here). I'd say their defense is about equal, maybe DT is better. Pat's 3pt shooting is better, but his volume negates that value. DT is better with the ball in his hands and 100x better around the rim.

They are different players

Sure, but they are both (to me) 5th option scorers who defend. Pat (for argument purposes) has a 3rd option ceiling and is being paid for that, but frankly I'm more skeptical on that than I used to be.

Pat is not being paid what 3rd options are paid unless it’s a 3rd option who doesn’t defend. And even then they get paid more.

[sco]

They are different players

Sure, but they are both (to me) 5th option scorers who defend. Pat (for argument purposes) has a 3rd option ceiling and is being paid for that, but frankly I'm more skeptical on that than I used to be.

Pat is not being paid what 3rd options are paid unless it’s a 3rd option who doesn’t defend. And even then they get paid more.

I disagree, but fine, we'll say 4th option. I will say that I don't think that non-C's get paid much more, if at all, for being "defenders", especially non-elite (but still above average) ones like Pat.

[DuckIII]

Sure, but they are both (to me) 5th option scorers who defend. Pat (for argument purposes) has a 3rd option ceiling and is being paid for that, but frankly I'm more skeptical on that than I used to be.

Pat is not being paid what 3rd options are paid unless it’s a 3rd option who doesn’t defend. And even then they get paid more.

I disagree, but fine, we'll say 4th option. I will say that I don't think that non-C's get paid much more, if at all, for being "defenders", especially non-elite (but still above average) ones like Pat.

It’s provable. Do you want me to find out? Put another way, do you think if I look at the salaries of the top three scorers on NBA teams the third one will average $18 million a year? If so I’ll look. If you think, seeing it that way, you are mistaken I won’t bother.

[sco]

Pat is not being paid what 3rd options are paid unless it’s a 3rd option who doesn’t defend. And even then they get paid more.

I disagree, but fine, we'll say 4th option. I will say that I don't think that non-C's get paid much more, if at all, for being "defenders", especially non-elite (but still above average) ones like Pat.

It’s provable. Do you want me to find out? Put another way, do you think if I look at the salaries of the top three scorers on NBA teams the third one will average $18 million a year? If so I’ll look. If you think, seeing it that way, you are mistaken I won’t bother.

Go ahead. I don't mind being proven wrong.

[DuckIII]

I disagree, but fine, we'll say 4th option. I will say that I don't think that non-C's get paid much more, if at all, for being "defenders", especially non-elite (but still above average) ones like Pat.

It’s provable. Do you want me to find out? Put another way, do you think if I look at the salaries of the top three scorers on NBA teams the third one will average $18 million a year? If so I’ll look. If you think, seeing it that way, you are mistaken I won’t bother.

Go ahead. I don't mind being proven wrong.

There are 23 teams in the NBA whose third option is not a rookie. The average annual salary is $26.3 million per year. Pat's contract would be the lowest paid third option in the NBA and he would have to make almost another full 50% of his current contract per year to be paid like an average third man. Bear in mind as well that an number of these teams have 4 or even 5 players making more than Pat, so really its even more pronounced than that.

And I didn't say Pat is being paid for being a defender. I said its part of the value of his contract that one-way third option scorers would not provide further illustrating the reasonableness of his deal.

And here's the final point: Almost all of these numbers except Pat's are based on the old math of contract value and they still make significantly more than Pat. Three years from now these numbers will be skewed massively even further in favor of the value of Pat's deal during its own lifetime.

Pat is and will be paid about like the lowest paid non-rookie starter on an NBA team.

[dougthonus]

It’s provable. Do you want me to find out? Put another way, do you think if I look at the salaries of the top three scorers on NBA teams the third one will average $18 million a year? If so I’ll look. If you think, seeing it that way, you are mistaken I won’t bother.

Go ahead. I don't mind being proven wrong.

There are 23 teams in the NBA whose third option is not a rookie. The average annual salary is $26.3 million per year. Pat's contract would be the lowest paid third option in the NBA and he would have to make almost another full 50% of his current contract per year to be paid like an average third man. Bear in mind as well that an number of these teams have 4 or even 5 players making more than Pat, so really its even more pronounced than that.

And I didn't say Pat is being paid for being a defender. I said its part of the value of his contract that one-way third option scorers would not provide further illustrating the reasonableness of his deal.

And here's the final point: Almost all of these numbers except Pat's are based on the old math of contract value and they still make significantly more than Pat. Three years from now these numbers will be skewed massively even further in favor of the value of Pat's deal during its own lifetime.

Pat is and will be paid about like the lowest paid non-rookie starter on an NBA team.

FWIW, I looked up previously, 18M ranges anywhere from 3rd to 6th highest paid player with 4th being the most common slot and 5th being the 2nd most common. Given he's flat and not getting raises, he probably will trend closer to 5th highest paid player on a team in his salary slot over future years.

It's possible some of the teams he'd be 5th/6th are big tax payers and perhaps the new rules will change that dynamic too so he still trends closer to 4, but somewhere between 4th/5th highest paid player is the space he's in.

[Infinity2152]

It’s provable. Do you want me to find out? Put another way, do you think if I look at the salaries of the top three scorers on NBA teams the third one will average $18 million a year? If so I’ll look. If you think, seeing it that way, you are mistaken I won’t bother.

Go ahead. I don't mind being proven wrong.

There are 23 teams in the NBA whose third option is not a rookie. The average annual salary is $26.3 million per year. Pat's contract would be the lowest paid third option in the NBA and he would have to make almost another full 50% of his current contract per year to be paid like an average third man. Bear in mind as well that an number of these teams have 4 or even 5 players making more than Pat, so really its even more pronounced than that.

And I didn't say Pat is being paid for being a defender. I said its part of the value of his contract that one-way third option scorers would not provide further illustrating the reasonableness of his deal.

And here's the final point: Almost all of these numbers except Pat's are based on the old math of contract value and they still make significantly more than Pat. Three years from now these numbers will be skewed massively even further in favor of the value of Pat's deal during its own lifetime.

Pat is and will be paid about like the lowest paid non-rookie starter on an NBA team.

Man, you should have posted this breakdown a month ago, lmao!! Makes it incredibly hard to argue Pat's salary, especially when you factor in age. Lowest paid non rookie starter? Damn! Even somewhere between 4th and 5th highest is damn low for a drafted starter when considering probable improvement over contract.

Not sure if he could be the third best player on a contender, but 4th or 5th is certainly doable.

[DuckIII]

Go ahead. I don't mind being proven wrong.

There are 23 teams in the NBA whose third option is not a rookie. The average annual salary is $26.3 million per year. Pat's contract would be the lowest paid third option in the NBA and he would have to make almost another full 50% of his current contract per year to be paid like an average third man. Bear in mind as well that an number of these teams have 4 or even 5 players making more than Pat, so really its even more pronounced than that.

And I didn't say Pat is being paid for being a defender. I said its part of the value of his contract that one-way third option scorers would not provide further illustrating the reasonableness of his deal.

And here's the final point: Almost all of these numbers except Pat's are based on the old math of contract value and they still make significantly more than Pat. Three years from now these numbers will be skewed massively even further in favor of the value of Pat's deal during its own lifetime.

Pat is and will be paid about like the lowest paid non-rookie starter on an NBA team.

Man, you should have posted this breakdown a month ago, lmao!! Makes it incredibly hard to argue Pat's salary, especially when you factor in age. Lowest paid non rookie starter? Damn! Even somewhere between 4th and 5th highest is damn low for a drafted starter when considering probable improvement over contract.

Not sure if he could be the third best player on a contender, but 4th or 5th is certainly doable.

No one wants to hear it because he’s widely loathed by the fan base, but his contract is not only reasonable, it’s going to be incredibly cheap even if he gets no better than he is now. The only way it becomes a bad deal is through injury or meaningful regression.

And we sure as hell aren’t paying or valuing him like a 3rd guy on a contender. People just are frustrated with him so they see everything though a negative lens.

Ironically, one of the things Bulls fans say about him is he’s being overvalued simply because of his draft status. It’s the opposite. He’s evaluated by fans in a way inconsistent with his play and contract value because of the expectations on a #4 draft pick which he clearly has not met.

The moment you are drafted, when it comes to objectively evaluating a player, your draft position becomes completely irrelevant. But many fans can’t get over that draft slot and the expectations that come with it, and as a result often want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

[HomoSapien]

I'll be honest, at this rate Pat feels like bad value for a 5th option too.

Could that change? Sure. But right now we are paying money for a guy who goes through the early part of the season being invisible and then inevitably has some sort of injury issue. I would much rather allocate that money and role to someone more reliable even if the upside is less.

[DuckIII]

And the “he still sucks” response is pretty much expected and why it’s kind of a waste of time to drill down like this.

[HomoSapien]

And the he “he still sucks” response is pretty much expected and why it’s kind of a waste of time to drill down like this.

Not sure if that was in response to my post or not. It's less so about him sucking and more so about the slow starts + the injury issues. I feel like that gets close to nullifying his more productive stretches since they have a tendency of being fleeting.

[DuckIII]

Except that you do think he sucks. To the point you think it would be wise, in our talentless position, to spend his $ on a lower ceiling player which is not rational in this context and therefore is based on something else. We need dice rolls. We don’t need another Tory Craig.

[HomoSapien]

Except that you do think he sucks. To the point you think it would be wise, in our talentless position, to spend his $ on a lower ceiling player which is not rational in this context and therefore is based on something else. We need dice rolls. We don’t need another Tory Craig.

That’s not my view point on Pat, thank you very much. If we could count on him to give us a consistent 70 games a season, then I would say that his three point shooting and defense were enough to keep him. In that scenario he's a quality role player. But that's not reality. He's constantly dealing with injury issues but those issues aren't as simple as he misses games. It means that he's routinely having to find his confidence and rhythm even when he is on the court. He reminds me a lot of Wendell Carter in that regard, who is another guy I think is a bad investment.

I think Pat has a lot of skill and talent but at what point does that ceiling stop mattering? He hasn't improved or progressed in a single meaningful way in four years. Is that because of the injuries? Is it because of his personality? Neither is a great reason. And to clarify, when I talk about preferring someone that's more consistent even if it's a player with less upside, I am not talking about Torey Craig. I mean someone more along the lines of Sadiq Bey who is regularly gettable, is still young, and finds a way of making an impact on the court even if he is less talented than Pat.