Re-evaluating the Keep Butler Counter-factual...

[PaKii94]

Only reason to keep Butler is if you can land land another top-flight FA like Kyrie. But Kyrie was going to Boston no matter what so which other player(s) would have put us over the top?

Bulls were on the short list for Kyrie with Jimmy around

based on what?

https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2017/7/21/16012988/kyrie-irving-chicago-bulls-jimmy-butler-trade-rumors

Only reason to keep Butler is if you can land land another top-flight FA like Kyrie. But Kyrie was going to Boston no matter what so which other player(s) would have put us over the top?

Bulls were on the short list for Kyrie with Jimmy around

How were the Bulls going to beat Boston's offer?

dunno lol. Just saying. I'd have gutted the team for a core of Kyrie & JB. It would have taken Kyrie to force his way to Chicago but it was possible...

[dice]

you NEED value contracts to contend.

You certainly don't. All you need is to sign guys in the right sequence and to be willing to pay a ton for your awesome team.

true. I should have said that it's almost impossible to win championships w/o value contracts. and those typically come in the form of superstars

[League Circles]

you NEED value contracts to contend.

You certainly don't. All you need is to sign guys in the right sequence and to be willing to pay a ton for your awesome team.

true. I should have said that it's almost impossible to win championships w/o value contracts. and those typically come in the form of superstars

I'm not so sure it's as rare as you think.

Bulls won multiple titles without value contracts IIRC. Cavs won a couple years ago without any of note that I can remember (though, again, this is where the important distinction has to come about whether Lebron is worth 35% or more of the cap).

Consider this - let's say one agrees that Lebron is better than KD or Curry or Kawhi. Doesn't that REQUIRE KD or Curry or Kawhi to be considered overpaid, then? I mean, if they are inferior to a player who makes the same as them???

Otherwise where do you draw the line? If all of them are worth more than the 35% max, but just to varying degrees, then perhaps basically every all star is worth 35% or more, with superstars being worth like 60% or whatever.

[DanTown8587]

You certainly don't. All you need is to sign guys in the right sequence and to be willing to pay a ton for your awesome team.

true. I should have said that it's almost impossible to win championships w/o value contracts. and those typically come in the form of superstars

I'm not so sure it's as rare as you think.

Bulls won multiple titles without value contracts IIRC. Cavs won a couple years ago without any of note that I can remember (though, again, this is where the important distinction has to come about whether Lebron is worth 35% or more of the cap).

Consider this - let's say one agrees that Lebron is better than KD or Curry or Kawhi. Doesn't that REQUIRE KD or Curry or Kawhi to be considered overpaid, then? I mean, if they are inferior to a player who makes the same as them???

Otherwise where do you draw the line? If all of them are worth more than the 35% max, but just to varying degrees, then perhaps basically every all star is worth 35% or more, with superstars being worth like 60% or whatever.

It's the Al Horford paradox: Horford is both overpaid and important to winning. You can't get Horford without giving him the max but if his max is equal to LeBron's max, LeBron's team has an inherent advantage.

The Warriors had the best value contract in the history of the league with Curry the previous four years. Steph Curry last year had the 82nd highest contract in the league. The Bucks were paying John Henson more than the Warriors were paying Curry. If you give any team that kind of advantage in terms of production for salary, they're far more likely to win than any other team.

[League Circles]

It's the Al Horford paradox: Horford is both overpaid and important to winning. You can't get Horford without giving him the max but if his max is equal to LeBron's max, LeBron's team has an inherent advantage.

The Warriors had the best value contract in the history of the league with Curry the previous four years. Steph Curry last year had the 82nd highest contract in the league. The Bucks were paying John Henson more than the Warriors were paying Curry. If you give any team that kind of advantage in terms of production for salary, they're far more likely to win than any other team.

This is why it all depends on sequencing and not on value in a vacuum. If you pay Curry that contract AFTER you already have a capped out team of meh players, it's not all that valuable in the sense that you won't compete for a title with it. If you pay him that before you fill out your roster, as they did, then it means the world.

[DanTown8587]

It's the Al Horford paradox: Horford is both overpaid and important to winning. You can't get Horford without giving him the max but if his max is equal to LeBron's max, LeBron's team has an inherent advantage.

The Warriors had the best value contract in the history of the league with Curry the previous four years. Steph Curry last year had the 82nd highest contract in the league. The Bucks were paying John Henson more than the Warriors were paying Curry. If you give any team that kind of advantage in terms of production for salary, they're far more likely to win than any other team.

This is why it all depends on sequencing and not on value in a vacuum. If you pay Curry that contract AFTER you already have a capped out team of meh players, it's not all that valuable in the sense that you won't compete for a title with it. If you pay him that before you fill out your roster, as they did, then it means the world.

But even if you're capped out then underpaying Curry allows you to keep other players and not pay massive luxury taxes that you'd otherwise pay if he was making fair market. In both scenarios, Curry's massive reduction in salary allows you to keep more players at higher costs elsewhere on the roster because of how little he makes.

[League Circles]

It's the Al Horford paradox: Horford is both overpaid and important to winning. You can't get Horford without giving him the max but if his max is equal to LeBron's max, LeBron's team has an inherent advantage.

The Warriors had the best value contract in the history of the league with Curry the previous four years. Steph Curry last year had the 82nd highest contract in the league. The Bucks were paying John Henson more than the Warriors were paying Curry. If you give any team that kind of advantage in terms of production for salary, they're far more likely to win than any other team.

This is why it all depends on sequencing and not on value in a vacuum. If you pay Curry that contract AFTER you already have a capped out team of meh players, it's not all that valuable in the sense that you won't compete for a title with it. If you pay him that before you fill out your roster, as they did, then it means the world.

But even if you're capped out then underpaying Curry allows you to keep other players and not pay massive luxury taxes that you'd otherwise pay if he was making fair market. In both scenarios, Curry's massive reduction in salary allows you to keep more players at higher costs elsewhere on the roster because of how little he makes.

It allows for a more profitable team, not a better one. I'm only concerned with the latter. One of the benefits of being a fan of a super popular, profitable major market team AND believing pretty strongly in maintaining cap flexibility whenever you aren't a good team (as I do) is that you can feel totally righteous in your expectations that, in the years where it makes basketball sense (let's say 1/4 of all years over long periods of time), your ownership should pay the **** up, whatever it takes.

[DanTown8587]

This is why it all depends on sequencing and not on value in a vacuum. If you pay Curry that contract AFTER you already have a capped out team of meh players, it's not all that valuable in the sense that you won't compete for a title with it. If you pay him that before you fill out your roster, as they did, then it means the world.

But even if you're capped out then underpaying Curry allows you to keep other players and not pay massive luxury taxes that you'd otherwise pay if he was making fair market. In both scenarios, Curry's massive reduction in salary allows you to keep more players at higher costs elsewhere on the roster because of how little he makes.

It allows for a more profitable team, not a better one. I'm only concerned with the latter. One of the benefits of being a fan of a super popular, profitable major market team AND believing pretty strongly in maintaining cap flexibility whenever you aren't a good team (as I do) is that you can feel totally righteous in your expectations that, in the years where it makes basketball sense (let's say 1/4 of all years over long periods of time), your ownership should pay the **** up, whatever it takes.

His lower salary means you're more likely to be under the salary cap apron and use the full MLE or use other mechanisms like S&T. His lower salary also helps to avoid the repeater tax for more years so an owner has to make less luxury tax payments because no owner is simply going to pay the repeater tax for five+ years.

2017 Durant+Curry salary: 38.7 million, room under apron 80.6 million
2018 Durant+Curry: 59.682 million, room under apron 65.58 million
2019 (est) Durant+Curry: 67.457 million, room under apron 55 million

[dice]

first of all, if they're all-star caliber (and not just the kind of guy who gets a nod or two in a weak conference), their large contracts are unlikely to be seen as questionable

but three fringe all-stars on big contracts won't get you anywhere. one would have to be an MVP candidate

we only recently had jimmy, noah and gasol on the same team and weren't fringe contenders, by the way. gasol made the all-star team, jimmy should have and noah had declined from his fringe mvp candidacy of the previous season. had noah been the same player (thus technically fulfilling my criteria from the previous paragraph) we probably would have been fringe contenders

I hate using the term "all-star" because actual all star teams are terrible representations often of who the best 12 players are, or certainly of what the best 12 man roster would look like. It's more closer to a collection of "the top 12 #1 options" (out of 15 teams). With the obvious implication on my part that the 12th best #1 option in a conference is usually not a good player (hi Zach Lavine).
Noah wasn't good anymore as you mention, and those players fit together horribly (Noah and Gasol couldn't really play together), and we STILL ACTUALLY WERE a fringe contender IMO. Took the Cavs to 6 games and probably 7 or even may have beat them if we were healthy.

fair enough

No, three all star caliber players that fit well together should be a fringe contender. Let me know if you find an example to the contrary. By fringe contender, let's say roughly final 8 teams.

a team with, say, three top 30 players that isn't in the top quarter of the league would indeed be hard to find. so yeah, if lauri, zach and dunn all become top 30 players, a scenario that boggles the mind, I would anticipate the chicago bulls being fringe contenders by your definition

[League Circles]

But even if you're capped out then underpaying Curry allows you to keep other players and not pay massive luxury taxes that you'd otherwise pay if he was making fair market. In both scenarios, Curry's massive reduction in salary allows you to keep more players at higher costs elsewhere on the roster because of how little he makes.

It allows for a more profitable team, not a better one. I'm only concerned with the latter. One of the benefits of being a fan of a super popular, profitable major market team AND believing pretty strongly in maintaining cap flexibility whenever you aren't a good team (as I do) is that you can feel totally righteous in your expectations that, in the years where it makes basketball sense (let's say 1/4 of all years over long periods of time), your ownership should pay the **** up, whatever it takes.

His lower salary means you're more likely to be under the salary cap apron and use the full MLE or use other mechanisms like S&T. His lower salary also helps to avoid the repeater tax for more years so an owner has to make less luxury tax payments because no owner is simply going to pay the repeater tax for five+ years.

2017 Durant+Curry salary: 38.7 million, room under apron 80.6 million
2018 Durant+Curry: 59.682 million, room under apron 65.58 million
2019 (est) Durant+Curry: 67.457 million, room under apron 55 million

All correct, but mostly profitability issues. The difference between the full MLE and the MMLE is worth pointing out as you did, but not enormous.

[League Circles]

first of all, if they're all-star caliber (and not just the kind of guy who gets a nod or two in a weak conference), their large contracts are unlikely to be seen as questionable

but three fringe all-stars on big contracts won't get you anywhere. one would have to be an MVP candidate

we only recently had jimmy, noah and gasol on the same team and weren't fringe contenders, by the way. gasol made the all-star team, jimmy should have and noah had declined from his fringe mvp candidacy of the previous season. had noah been the same player (thus technically fulfilling my criteria from the previous paragraph) we probably would have been fringe contenders

I hate using the term "all-star" because actual all star teams are terrible representations often of who the best 12 players are, or certainly of what the best 12 man roster would look like. It's more closer to a collection of "the top 12 #1 options" (out of 15 teams). With the obvious implication on my part that the 12th best #1 option in a conference is usually not a good player (hi Zach Lavine).
Noah wasn't good anymore as you mention, and those players fit together horribly (Noah and Gasol couldn't really play together), and we STILL ACTUALLY WERE a fringe contender IMO. Took the Cavs to 6 games and probably 7 or even may have beat them if we were healthy.

fair enough

No, three all star caliber players that fit well together should be a fringe contender. Let me know if you find an example to the contrary. By fringe contender, let's say roughly final 8 teams.

a team with, say, three top 30 players that isn't in the top quarter of the league would indeed be hard to find. so yeah, if lauri, zach and dunn all become top 30 players, a scenario that boggles the mind, I would anticipate the chicago bulls being fringe contenders by your definition

We're in full agreement, then. Cheers.

My main point to the other poster I think it was Mark was that just because the Bulls may have not thought that Jimmy would be worth supermax to them in the likely situation in which they'd have to decide on offering it to him or not, does not necessarily mean that it won't be worth it to max Lauri, Lavine, and Dunn, even if none of the three are as good as Jimmy, because of the very different situation that THAT hypothetical team would be in (let's say three youngish top 20 or 30 players vs 1 older top 10-15 player). Now as we agree, it's unlikely, but basically, just cause player X isn't worth Y to team in scenario A, doesn't have to mean that lesser players L, M, and N aren't worth Y to team in very different scenario B. I like variables.

[kingkirk]

Well, if you have three guys who command 30 or 35% of the cap, you're in a lot better shape, even if you think they're not quite worth it, than having one guy you do think is worth it. Not that I think our guys other than maybe Lauri will command that.

My best guess is that Lavine's next deal (not the one he signs this summer) will be an MLE deal.

There have been and are many teams that have paid 2-3 max or near max deals to guys who were very good but not top 10 good, and it hurt them.

But the point is, when do you just do it? A team like the Wizards have Wall, Beal and Porter on max deals. They’re good but not great. Was it wrong for them to do so?

Based on what I’ve seen to date, the Bulls might be the next Wizards. With logical building, they could’ve had the same with level of success with Butler.

[DanTown8587]

I hate using the term "all-star" because actual all star teams are terrible representations often of who the best 12 players are, or certainly of what the best 12 man roster would look like. It's more closer to a collection of "the top 12 #1 options" (out of 15 teams). With the obvious implication on my part that the 12th best #1 option in a conference is usually not a good player (hi Zach Lavine).
Noah wasn't good anymore as you mention, and those players fit together horribly (Noah and Gasol couldn't really play together), and we STILL ACTUALLY WERE a fringe contender IMO. Took the Cavs to 6 games and probably 7 or even may have beat them if we were healthy.

fair enough

No, three all star caliber players that fit well together should be a fringe contender. Let me know if you find an example to the contrary. By fringe contender, let's say roughly final 8 teams.

a team with, say, three top 30 players that isn't in the top quarter of the league would indeed be hard to find. so yeah, if lauri, zach and dunn all become top 30 players, a scenario that boggles the mind, I would anticipate the chicago bulls being fringe contenders by your definition

We're in full agreement, then. Cheers.

My main point to the other poster I think it was Mark was that just because the Bulls may have not thought that Jimmy would be worth supermax to them in the likely situation in which they'd have to decide on offering it to him or not, does not necessarily mean that it won't be worth it to max Lauri, Lavine, and Dunn, even if none of the three are as good as Jimmy, because of the very different situation that THAT hypothetical team would be in (let's say three youngish top 20 or 30 players vs 1 older top 10-15 player). Now as we agree, it's unlikely, but basically, just cause player X isn't worth Y to team in scenario A, doesn't have to mean that lesser players L, M, and N aren't worth Y to team in very different scenario B. I like variables.

It's really hard to argue that a player like Butler (All-NBA 2nd team selection, certified all-star that isn't on the fringe) would be a fearful resign due to the lack of value in that contract for ages 30-34 but then a team should commit major cap to multiple guys who aren't as good at 80-85% of his contract value.

I'd buy the argument Jimmy's injury history as a primary scorer (missing 15-20 games a year each year since he became a true two way offensive player) makes it questionable to commit to him time wise in to his mid/late 30s but that has nothing to do with his play and his contract value.

It would be hard to argue that a team can believe in letting go of a top 15 player because of concerns over his value on his next contract but then giving out three contracts that are questionable value to replace him.

[League Circles]

Well, if you have three guys who command 30 or 35% of the cap, you're in a lot better shape, even if you think they're not quite worth it, than having one guy you do think is worth it. Not that I think our guys other than maybe Lauri will command that.

My best guess is that Lavine's next deal (not the one he signs this summer) will be an MLE deal.

There have been and are many teams that have paid 2-3 max or near max deals to guys who were very good but not top 10 good, and it hurt them.

But the point is, when do you just do it? A team like the Wizards have Wall, Beal and Porter on max deals. They’re good but not great. Was it wrong for them to do so?

Based on what I’ve seen to date, the Bulls might be the next Wizards. With logical building, they could’ve had the same with level of success with Butler.

Good question. Porter most certainly isn't "very good" IMO, and, equally as important, they don't fit all that well together (no bigs among the three).

But they are a good borderline case. They are like the 9th team in the league, I had said top 8 is what you want to maintain. I wouldn't have signed Porter to his deal.

[dice]

Well, if you have three guys who command 30 or 35% of the cap, you're in a lot better shape, even if you think they're not quite worth it, than having one guy you do think is worth it. Not that I think our guys other than maybe Lauri will command that.

My best guess is that Lavine's next deal (not the one he signs this summer) will be an MLE deal.

There have been and are many teams that have paid 2-3 max or near max deals to guys who were very good but not top 10 good, and it hurt them.

But the point is, when do you just do it? A team like the Wizards have Wall, Beal and Porter on max deals. They’re good but not great. Was it wrong for them to do so?

Based on what I’ve seen to date, the Bulls might be the next Wizards. With logical building, they could’ve had the same with level of success with Butler.

Good question. Porter most certainly isn't "very good" IMO, and, equally as important, they don't fit all that well together (no bigs among the three).

But they are a good borderline case. They are like the 9th team in the league, I had said top 8 is what you want to maintain. I wouldn't have signed Porter to his deal.

porter is above average at his position at pretty much everything. that's not just very good, it's excellent

[League Circles]

It's really hard to argue that a player like Butler (All-NBA 2nd team selection, certified all-star that isn't on the fringe) would be a fearful resign due to the lack of value in that contract for ages 30-34 but then a team should commit major cap to multiple guys who aren't as good at 80-85% of his contract value.

I'd buy the argument Jimmy's injury history as a primary scorer (missing 15-20 games a year each year since he became a true two way offensive player) makes it questionable to commit to him time wise in to his mid/late 30s but that has nothing to do with his play and his contract value.

It would be hard to argue that a team can believe in letting go of a top 15 player because of concerns over his value on his next contract but then giving out three contracts that are questionable value to replace him.

Well I wanted to keep Jimmy, and in general, my philosophy defaults to this:

1. resign ALL players who project to be "really good" (let's say top 10 starters at their positions) during most of the contract in question
2. Don't resign ANYONE else for more than a year at a time UNLESS there is no meaningful likelihood of there being an opportunity cost in doing so (like when you're capped out for years to come)

But ultimately, my point here is that it's not the value of the contract that matters, it's the value of the team that includes said player on said contract. Bulls didn't think they'd have a good enough chance to build a good enough team to justify going down that road any further. I disagreed, but I understand. I'm not a title or bust guy. I would have been OK with top 8 finishes for 3 or 4 years with Jimmy and I think that was plausible. I think they felt a lot of pressure from the fan base to make a big splash and go for lottery tickets.

[kingkirk]

Good question. Porter most certainly isn't "very good" IMO, and, equally as important, they don't fit all that well together (no bigs among the three).

But they are a good borderline case. They are like the 9th team in the league, I had said top 8 is what you want to maintain. I wouldn't have signed Porter to his deal.

Porter is definitely good. And if you don’t pay him, what do you do given you have limited cap space, if any?

And these three definitely fit well together. Not having a big man doesn’t change that.

[League Circles]

There have been and are many teams that have paid 2-3 max or near max deals to guys who were very good but not top 10 good, and it hurt them.

But the point is, when do you just do it? A team like the Wizards have Wall, Beal and Porter on max deals. They’re good but not great. Was it wrong for them to do so?

Based on what I’ve seen to date, the Bulls might be the next Wizards. With logical building, they could’ve had the same with level of success with Butler.

Good question. Porter most certainly isn't "very good" IMO, and, equally as important, they don't fit all that well together (no bigs among the three).

But they are a good borderline case. They are like the 9th team in the league, I had said top 8 is what you want to maintain. I wouldn't have signed Porter to his deal.

porter is above average at his position at pretty much everything. that's not just very good, it's excellent

Is he really? His scoring and assist volume seems pretty average to me. Besides, it doesn't matter, because once you have Wall and Beal locked up, you really need a big of that caliber, not another perimeter type guy. But they have Ian Mahinmi so maybe they're all set.

But, all that said, I think they borderline made the right decision. I'd have to know more about their situation and alternatives available at the time they signed him.

[League Circles]

Good question. Porter most certainly isn't "very good" IMO, and, equally as important, they don't fit all that well together (no bigs among the three).

But they are a good borderline case. They are like the 9th team in the league, I had said top 8 is what you want to maintain. I wouldn't have signed Porter to his deal.

Porter is definitely good. And if you don’t pay him, what do you do given you have limited cap space, if any?

And these three definitely fit well together. Not having a big man doesn’t change that.

See my other response to dice for your first question.

As for fit, it's not that they don't mix well, it's that their salary prohibits the wizards from adding a dynamic big man, which is what you really want once you have two dynamic perimeter guys. Again, not a major mistake on their part or necessarily one at all. They are a good borderline case for what I'm arguing.

[League Circles]

There have been and are many teams that have paid 2-3 max or near max deals to guys who were very good but not top 10 good, and it hurt them.

But the point is, when do you just do it? A team like the Wizards have Wall, Beal and Porter on max deals. They’re good but not great. Was it wrong for them to do so?

Based on what I’ve seen to date, the Bulls might be the next Wizards. With logical building, they could’ve had the same with level of success with Butler.

Good question. Porter most certainly isn't "very good" IMO, and, equally as important, they don't fit all that well together (no bigs among the three).

But they are a good borderline case. They are like the 9th team in the league, I had said top 8 is what you want to maintain. I wouldn't have signed Porter to his deal.

porter is above average at his position at pretty much everything. that's not just very good, it's excellent

By my rough estimate, there are 6-12 guys you'd rather have playing SF for your team than Porter. So I'd say he's good, with a chance to be very good, but definitely not "Excellent".