RealGM

B Mac feel free to merge these threads.

The problem with doing a deal at that number is that virtually everyone in Thompson’s talent range got substantially more, most receiving the NBA maximum salary, some for less years, but most for the same year one dollar amount.

Thompson’s camp pulled back from the $80 million number, wanting the Cavs to step up with more based on what virtually everyone else in Thompson’s peer range got.

I’m not sure who Thompson considers his peers, but I place him solidly behind Marc Gasol, LaMarcus Aldridge, Kevin Love, DeAndre Jordan, Greg Monroe, Draymond Green, Brook Lopez, Paul Millsap and Tim Duncan in the next group of big-man free agents.

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/19/report-tristan-thompson-rejected-80-million-contract-offer-from-cavaliers-because-his-perceived-peers-got-more/#comments

My favorite part of that column is actually the reddit link in the comments which shows the impact of paying TT $80m now, or the QO next year + max offer the next year:

https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/3ghvsj/rebuking_windhorst_why_tristan_thompsons_contract/

A couple takeaways:
- Effectively, the Cavs come out even by giving TT a contract worth $40m more next year. It's oversimplified a bit because the analysis doesn't look at things like what we'll end up paying Mozgov.
- If TT doesn't re-sign and we don't S&T him, we can be under the tax level the year we lose him without his salary, meaning we'll have at least the MLE to find a replacement. We might even be able to scoot under the tax. The new PF can even be a 1-year contract, because...
- ... 2017-2018 will have a gigantic tax number which we should be well under and can find someone on the market to sign a longer-term deal with.

All of the "we'll never be able to replace him" hype is a little overblown.

toooskies wrote:My favorite part of that column is actually the reddit link in the comments which shows the impact of paying TT $80m now, or the QO next year + max offer the next year:

https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/3ghvsj/rebuking_windhorst_why_tristan_thompsons_contract/

A couple takeaways:
- Effectively, the Cavs come out even by giving TT a contract worth $40m more next year. It's oversimplified a bit because the analysis doesn't look at things like what we'll end up paying Mozgov.
- If TT doesn't re-sign and we don't S&T him, we can be under the tax level the year we lose him without his salary, meaning we'll have at least the MLE to find a replacement. We might even be able to scoot under the tax. The new PF can even be a 1-year contract, because...
- ... 2017-2018 will have a gigantic tax number which we should be well under and can find someone on the market to sign a longer-term deal with.

All of the "we'll never be able to replace him" hype is a way, way overblown.

FTFY.

I say we call Tristan's bluff. He's not getting more than what we offered. Even if he takes the QO and is set on leaving, is it likely that another team will offer him more money next summer than the Cavs? And is it likely he'll want to leave LeBron's side and a team that can contend for championships for years?

Besides, Tristan is not as irreplaceable as everyone thinks he is.

Overpaying for role-players rarely works out well for the team. ~ Eric Dampier, Jared Jeffries, Bobby Simmons, Hedo Turkoglu, etc.

The problem with doing a deal at that number is that virtually everyone in Thompson’s talent range got substantially more, most receiving the NBA maximum salary, some for less years, but most for the same year one dollar amount.

Thompson’s camp pulled back from the $80 million number, wanting the Cavs to step up with more based on what virtually everyone else in Thompson’s peer range got.

KuruptedCav wrote:Overpaying for role-players rarely works out well for the team. ~ Eric Dampier, Jared Jeffries, Bobby Simmons, Hedo Turkoglu, etc.

It's not just that, it is identifying which of the role players available fit on your team's system.
Some GMs lucked out because they signed certain role players that turned out to be great.

Such as:
Robert Horry
Ron Harper
John Salley
Dennis Rodman
Mario Elie
Steve Kerr
Horace Grant
Sam Cassell
James Posey

We only talk about it being overpaying is when they fail to win. When they win, no one even cared how much was spent.
Mind you every season there is only one winner out of thirty teams. It's really hard to be that one winning team.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it just doesn't. But if you don't risk it, you won't even have the chance to win it either.

asuran wrote:

KuruptedCav wrote:Overpaying for role-players rarely works out well for the team. ~ Eric Dampier, Jared Jeffries, Bobby Simmons, Hedo Turkoglu, etc.

It's not just that, it is identifying which of the role players available fit on your team's system.
Some GMs lucked out because they signed certain role players that turned out to be great.

Such as:
Robert Horry
Ron Harper
John Salley
Dennis Rodman
Mario Elie
Steve Kerr
Horace Grant
Sam Cassell
James Posey

We only talk about it being overpaying is when they fail to win. When they win, no one even cared how much was spent.
Mind you every season there is only one winner out of thirty teams. It's really hard to be that one winning team.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it just doesn't. But if you don't risk it, you won't even have the chance to win it either.

I would argue that half the players on that list were not critical to the contending team's success. Conversely, when they signed big contracts away from those teams they disappointed (Posey especially). Your line of reasoning cuts both ways. It's not like TT is willing to be reasonable because he's in the perfect situation. He wants more than his market value. If some non-contending team gives him a max deal, they'll regret it when TT looks a lot more like the pre-LBJ TT.