ImageImageImage

Kennards value?

Moderators: dVs33, Snakebites, theBigLip

User avatar
Manocad
RealGM
Posts: 62,680
And1: 8,003
Joined: Dec 13, 2005
Location: Middle Fingerton
Contact:
       

Re: Kennards value? 

Post#21 » by Manocad » Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:48 am

mattao313 wrote:
Pharaoh wrote:Seems 12-18 mil is where we all put him.

I believe that's a fair assessment.

Question is: do we want to be paying that amount of money to a guy that:

Has injury concerns already
Isn't a legit top 3 option offensively
Is a defensive liability

While we still have a couple of years of Blake's contract on the books too!

Between Blake and Luke we'd be paying approx 50 mil for those 2 guys!

We're stuck with Blake. No need to compound that IMO

Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app

Why not? He isn't gonna hurt the team and would be an asset. Yall are over thinking it we going to sign players that's inevitable everyone isn't gonna be on a bargain rookie contract.

If he wants too much then just let him go. If not keep him on the team

I don't personally think that the team has to get rid of Kennard, nor do I think it's a devastating blow to the rebuild plan if he goes somewhere else for more money than the Pistons believe he's worth and they don't get a draft pick for him. That being said, is trading Luke for a first round pick an easier decision if it's a high pick vs 30? Sure. But do you pass on an offer of a late first rounder and hope Luke stays affordable? That does require some thinking.

I think it's more about keeping/paying a player you don't see as being a key piece of the long term plan rather than what he'd get paid. Well, for me it is anyway.
Image
440BB
Sophomore
Posts: 220
And1: 135
Joined: Jul 13, 2017
     

Re: Kennards value? 

Post#22 » by 440BB » Sun Oct 18, 2020 1:23 pm

For me, any estimate of Kennard's value has to be tempered by the possibility his knee tendonitis may be chronic, making him a part time player regardless of his on court abilities. I think that if he plays well and stays healthy up to the trade deadline I would take a decent offer for him, either a late first round pick or another young player with upside and an early second rounder.

I like a number of things Luke does but his durability is a big enough question mark that if no decent offer turned up I'd be at no more than $10m/yr, two years with a team option for a third. Maybe incentive laden. I can't imagine paying more to Kennard than we would offer Wood.

I would give Kennard a hefty bonus if he'd shave his head so I didn't have to watch him constantly playing with his hair. Maybe Weaver can add hair plugs to the contract. Whatever it takes.
User avatar
Manocad
RealGM
Posts: 62,680
And1: 8,003
Joined: Dec 13, 2005
Location: Middle Fingerton
Contact:
       

Re: Kennards value? 

Post#23 » by Manocad » Sun Oct 18, 2020 2:01 pm

440BB wrote:For me, any estimate of Kennard's value has to be tempered by the possibility his knee tendonitis may be chronic, making him a part time player regardless of his on court abilities. I think that if he plays well and stays healthy up to the trade deadline I would take a decent offer for him, either a late first round pick or another young player with upside and an early second rounder.

I like a number of things Luke does but his durability is a big enough question mark that if no decent offer turned up I'd be at no more than $10m/yr, two years with a team option for a third. Maybe incentive laden. I can't imagine paying more to Kennard than we would offer Wood.

I would give Kennard a hefty bonus if he'd shave his head so I didn't have to watch him constantly playing with his hair. Maybe Weaver can add hair plugs to the contract. Whatever it takes.

Exactly. I’d hate to see the Pistons sign him to a 4-5 year deal then his knees continue to go south and he can only play 12-15 minutes a game while being untradeable.
Image
mattao313
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,637
And1: 2,599
Joined: Aug 29, 2014
       

Re: Kennards value? 

Post#24 » by mattao313 » Sun Oct 18, 2020 2:41 pm

Manocad wrote:
mattao313 wrote:
Pharaoh wrote:Seems 12-18 mil is where we all put him.

I believe that's a fair assessment.

Question is: do we want to be paying that amount of money to a guy that:

Has injury concerns already
Isn't a legit top 3 option offensively
Is a defensive liability

While we still have a couple of years of Blake's contract on the books too!

Between Blake and Luke we'd be paying approx 50 mil for those 2 guys!

We're stuck with Blake. No need to compound that IMO

Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app

Why not? He isn't gonna hurt the team and would be an asset. Yall are over thinking it we going to sign players that's inevitable everyone isn't gonna be on a bargain rookie contract.

If he wants too much then just let him go. If not keep him on the team

I don't personally think that the team has to get rid of Kennard, nor do I think it's a devastating blow to the rebuild plan if he goes somewhere else for more money than the Pistons believe he's worth and they don't get a draft pick for him. That being said, is trading Luke for a first round pick an easier decision if it's a high pick vs 30? Sure. But do you pass on an offer of a late first rounder and hope Luke stays affordable? That does require some thinking.

I think it's more about keeping/paying a player you don't see as being a key piece of the long term plan rather than what he'd get paid. Well, for me it is anyway.

Imo I think Kennard is more valuable than a late pick so passing that chance up to try and sign him is totally fine with me. The Pistons need to retain assets a shooter like Kennard is valuable even if he isnt here when we finally get good.

Also it's good to have some good role players around you don't know who we draft and they may end up being good way earlier than expected.
Championships
User avatar
TurboTitan
Starter
Posts: 2,010
And1: 1,784
Joined: Jul 12, 2013
Location: Windsor, ON
   

Re: Kennards value? 

Post#25 » by TurboTitan » Mon Oct 19, 2020 1:21 am

we need to get a late lotto pick for him
“We don't see ourselves as All-Stars. We see ourselves as one unit. It's like five fingers on a hand. You can do more damage together as a fist than spread out flat.” ~SHEED
Invictus88
Rookie
Posts: 1,190
And1: 388
Joined: Jun 25, 2013

Re: Kennards value? 

Post#26 » by Invictus88 » Mon Oct 19, 2020 1:59 am

Pharaoh wrote:Seems 12-18 mil is where we all put him.

I believe that's a fair assessment.

Question is: do we want to be paying that amount of money to a guy that:

Has injury concerns already
Isn't a legit top 3 option offensively
Is a defensive liability

While we still have a couple of years of Blake's contract on the books too!

Between Blake and Luke we'd be paying approx 50 mil for those 2 guys!

We're stuck with Blake. No need to compound that IMO

Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app


I'm having trouble with the logic in this.

You first state that it's a fair assessment that he's worth 12-18 million.
You then proceed to tear him down (with legit points I might add).
You then lump him in with Blake who is worth way less than what he is being paid (which I'm interpreting to mean that you believe that Luke at 12-18 million is an overpay).

Either he's worth 12-18 million, or he's not. If he is then why do you have a problem with him signing for that. If he's not then we shouldn't be signing him for that much??? (and thus he doesn't fall into the same bucket as Blake)

Maybe you believe that he'll get 12-18 million and he's not worth that? Is that where my mistake is?
User avatar
Pharaoh
RealGM
Posts: 13,091
And1: 3,252
Joined: Aug 10, 2001

Re: Kennards value? 

Post#27 » by Pharaoh » Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:07 am

Invictus88 wrote:
Pharaoh wrote:Seems 12-18 mil is where we all put him.

I believe that's a fair assessment.

Question is: do we want to be paying that amount of money to a guy that:

Has injury concerns already
Isn't a legit top 3 option offensively
Is a defensive liability

While we still have a couple of years of Blake's contract on the books too!

Between Blake and Luke we'd be paying approx 50 mil for those 2 guys!

We're stuck with Blake. No need to compound that IMO

Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app


I'm having trouble with the logic in this.

You first state that it's a fair assessment that he's worth 12-18 million.
You then proceed to tear him down (with legit points I might add).
You then lump him in with Blake who is worth way less than what he is being paid (which I'm interpreting to mean that you believe that Luke at 12-18 million is an overpay).

Either he's worth 12-18 million, or he's not. If he is then why do you have a problem with him signing for that. If he's not then we shouldn't be signing him for that much??? (and thus he doesn't fall into the same bucket as Blake)

Maybe you believe that he'll get 12-18 million and he's not worth that? Is that where my mistake is?
I lumped him in with Blake at the end because for a season or 2 those guys would = approx 70 mil.

IF the cap ends up being 105 mil or so for the next few years we don't have a lot of space, especially after we retain Wood.

Luke IS worth something in the 12-18 mil range. We all agree on that.

I'd just rather not pay it as we start the full rebuild. I'd prefer we deal him for a 2020 pick in the 10-21 range and reset the timeline on his rookie deal.

Luke is a capable player when healthy, might one day be a legit 3rd/4th option on a really good team.

But he hasn't been healthy and we don't yet have our 1st and 2nd options.

Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app
User avatar
Pharaoh
RealGM
Posts: 13,091
And1: 3,252
Joined: Aug 10, 2001

Re: Kennards value? 

Post#28 » by Pharaoh » Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:10 am

Manocad wrote:
440BB wrote:For me, any estimate of Kennard's value has to be tempered by the possibility his knee tendonitis may be chronic, making him a part time player regardless of his on court abilities. I think that if he plays well and stays healthy up to the trade deadline I would take a decent offer for him, either a late first round pick or another young player with upside and an early second rounder.

I like a number of things Luke does but his durability is a big enough question mark that if no decent offer turned up I'd be at no more than $10m/yr, two years with a team option for a third. Maybe incentive laden. I can't imagine paying more to Kennard than we would offer Wood.

I would give Kennard a hefty bonus if he'd shave his head so I didn't have to watch him constantly playing with his hair. Maybe Weaver can add hair plugs to the contract. Whatever it takes.

Exactly. I’d hate to see the Pistons sign him to a 4-5 year deal then his knees continue to go south and he can only play 12-15 minutes a game while being untradeable.
That's the nightmare scenario for us and I don't believe Luke is good enough to hang on to hoping that doesn't happen.

Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app
Billl
Veteran
Posts: 2,629
And1: 1,082
Joined: Sep 06, 2013

Re: Kennards value? 

Post#29 » by Billl » Mon Oct 19, 2020 2:17 pm

This year, I don't think Luke would get more than the MLE. Not a lot of teams with cap space plus his injury concerns would be a tough environment for him. If he stays healthy all year and builds on his success, someone will offer him starter money. Unless we get super lucky, we aren't going to be to a point in the rebuild where locking in a guy like luke long term makes a ton of sense. Who knows though, a year can make a big difference. His game should mesh with all sorts of different "stars" , so if 2 of either the next 2 picks or sekou show out, that would change our timeline considerably.
User avatar
The_Irony
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,269
And1: 390
Joined: Nov 28, 2002
Location: Westcoast

Re: Kennards value? 

Post#30 » by The_Irony » Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:56 pm

mattao313 wrote:
Pharaoh wrote:Seems 12-18 mil is where we all put him.

I believe that's a fair assessment.

Question is: do we want to be paying that amount of money to a guy that:

Has injury concerns already
Isn't a legit top 3 option offensively
Is a defensive liability

While we still have a couple of years of Blake's contract on the books too!

Between Blake and Luke we'd be paying approx 50 mil for those 2 guys!

We're stuck with Blake. No need to compound that IMO

Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app

Why not? He isn't gonna hurt the team and would be an asset. Yall are over thinking it we going to sign players that's inevitable everyone isn't gonna be on a bargain rookie contract.

If he wants too much then just let him go. If not keep him on the team


This has potential to be a kcp situation where he gets big money from a bad team while getting way less with shorter years on a good team.

Kcp played great when it mattered most but he should never have been a 4yrs 80 mill guy. He is in his proper role with LAL and a team like NYK or ATL will be dumb enough to overpay him.

Luke is not good enough to spend money and invest in as a starter and he will expect to get starter money here. His shooting is fantastic but doesnt have the mentality to take over consistently. He doesnt even have the mentality to shoot fearlessly like herro, Robinson or even galloway. that caps his earning potential there. Add that he isnt a good defender, isnt athletic and has injury issues. That should be enough to first try to trade him to a contending team that will have less expectations of him and give him a clear, realistic role and can accentuate what he does do well. A player like him on a contender means more than drafting a young player that will take 2 3 years to see their true worth.

Luke, just like kcp has expectations here to be something he isnt. a person is expecting kcp to be a top 3/4 guy on a team when you give him 20 mill a season which he is not unless his teammates are lebron and AD. I will only want to keep luke if his role is defined as a key offensive bench piece who can start in spurts when theres an injury.
mattao313
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,637
And1: 2,599
Joined: Aug 29, 2014
       

Re: Kennards value? 

Post#31 » by mattao313 » Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:06 pm

The_Irony wrote:
mattao313 wrote:
Pharaoh wrote:Seems 12-18 mil is where we all put him.

I believe that's a fair assessment.

Question is: do we want to be paying that amount of money to a guy that:

Has injury concerns already
Isn't a legit top 3 option offensively
Is a defensive liability

While we still have a couple of years of Blake's contract on the books too!

Between Blake and Luke we'd be paying approx 50 mil for those 2 guys!

We're stuck with Blake. No need to compound that IMO

Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app

Why not? He isn't gonna hurt the team and would be an asset. Yall are over thinking it we going to sign players that's inevitable everyone isn't gonna be on a bargain rookie contract.

If he wants too much then just let him go. If not keep him on the team


This has potential to be a kcp situation where he gets big money from a bad team while getting way less with shorter years on a good team.

Kcp played great when it mattered most but he should never have been a 4yrs 80 mill guy. He is in his proper role with LAL and a team like NYK or ATL will be dumb enough to overpay him.

Luke is not good enough to spend money and invest on as a starter and he will expect to get starter money here. His shooting is fantastic but doesnt have the mentality to take over consistently. He doesnt even have the mentality to shoot many attempts like herro, Robinson or even galloway. that caps his earning potential there. Add that he isnt a good defender, isnt athletic and has injury issues. That should be enough to first try to trade him to a contending team that will have less expectations of him and give him a clear, realistic role and can accentuate what he does do well.

Luke, just like kcp has expectations here to be something he isnt. a person is expecting kcp to be a top 3/4 guy on a team when you give him 20 mill a season which he is not unless his teammates are lebron and AD. I will only want to keep luke if his role is defined as a key offensive bench piece who can start in spurts when theres an injury.

Disagree this isn't the same situation as KCP when the cap was increasing and players were getting crazy money. Now a lot of teams don't have a lot to spend.
Also Kennard imo is starting caliber a guy who is a lightsout shooter that can't be left open and can also create a little bit is great as a starter. Kennard has had games where he looked automatic on offense.
Championships
Invictus88
Rookie
Posts: 1,190
And1: 388
Joined: Jun 25, 2013

Re: Kennards value? 

Post#32 » by Invictus88 » Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:58 pm

Pharaoh wrote:
Invictus88 wrote:
Pharaoh wrote:Seems 12-18 mil is where we all put him.

I believe that's a fair assessment.

Question is: do we want to be paying that amount of money to a guy that:

Has injury concerns already
Isn't a legit top 3 option offensively
Is a defensive liability

While we still have a couple of years of Blake's contract on the books too!

Between Blake and Luke we'd be paying approx 50 mil for those 2 guys!

We're stuck with Blake. No need to compound that IMO

Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app


I'm having trouble with the logic in this.

You first state that it's a fair assessment that he's worth 12-18 million.
You then proceed to tear him down (with legit points I might add).
You then lump him in with Blake who is worth way less than what he is being paid (which I'm interpreting to mean that you believe that Luke at 12-18 million is an overpay).

Either he's worth 12-18 million, or he's not. If he is then why do you have a problem with him signing for that. If he's not then we shouldn't be signing him for that much??? (and thus he doesn't fall into the same bucket as Blake)

Maybe you believe that he'll get 12-18 million and he's not worth that? Is that where my mistake is?
I lumped him in with Blake at the end because for a season or 2 those guys would = approx 70 mil.

IF the cap ends up being 105 mil or so for the next few years we don't have a lot of space, especially after we retain Wood.

Luke IS worth something in the 12-18 mil range. We all agree on that.

I'd just rather not pay it as we start the full rebuild. I'd prefer we deal him for a 2020 pick in the 10-21 range and reset the timeline on his rookie deal.

Luke is a capable player when healthy, might one day be a legit 3rd/4th option on a really good team.

But he hasn't been healthy and we don't yet have our 1st and 2nd options.

Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app

We aren't really expecting to be doing anything while Blake is on the roster anyway right? Obviously if signing Luke would get in the way of retaining someone else that we do deem to be more a part of our future then we should pass. But he's 23.

To be honest I'm not even saying we need to decide this now. In fact what I am suggesting is that we don't. For all of the injury reasons you state his value is the lowest it will end up being.

Remember. He's a guy who averaged 15.8 with 40% 3 point shooting over a 28 game sample. He's 23. Let him prove he's healthy next season leading up to the trade deadline and then ship him for a 2021 pick if we don't want to sign him further. It's exciting to get immediate returns from the 2020 draft class but they will be better from 2021.

And if he ends up being injured leading up to the next trade deadline then honestly we probably haven't lost too much. He'll still only be 24.
User avatar
The_Irony
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,269
And1: 390
Joined: Nov 28, 2002
Location: Westcoast

Re: Kennards value? 

Post#33 » by The_Irony » Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:38 pm

Invictus88 wrote:
Pharaoh wrote:
Invictus88 wrote:
I'm having trouble with the logic in this.

You first state that it's a fair assessment that he's worth 12-18 million.
You then proceed to tear him down (with legit points I might add).
You then lump him in with Blake who is worth way less than what he is being paid (which I'm interpreting to mean that you believe that Luke at 12-18 million is an overpay).

Either he's worth 12-18 million, or he's not. If he is then why do you have a problem with him signing for that. If he's not then we shouldn't be signing him for that much??? (and thus he doesn't fall into the same bucket as Blake)

Maybe you believe that he'll get 12-18 million and he's not worth that? Is that where my mistake is?
I lumped him in with Blake at the end because for a season or 2 those guys would = approx 70 mil.

IF the cap ends up being 105 mil or so for the next few years we don't have a lot of space, especially after we retain Wood.

Luke IS worth something in the 12-18 mil range. We all agree on that.

I'd just rather not pay it as we start the full rebuild. I'd prefer we deal him for a 2020 pick in the 10-21 range and reset the timeline on his rookie deal.

Luke is a capable player when healthy, might one day be a legit 3rd/4th option on a really good team.

But he hasn't been healthy and we don't yet have our 1st and 2nd options.

Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app

We aren't really expecting to be doing anything while Blake is on the roster anyway right? Obviously if signing Luke would get in the way of retaining someone else that we do deem to be more a part of our future then we should pass. But he's 23.

To be honest I'm not even saying we need to decide this now. In fact what I am suggesting is that we don't. For all of the injury reasons you state his value is the lowest it will end up being.

Remember. He's a guy who averaged 15.8 with 40% 3 point shooting over a 28 game sample. He's 23. Let him prove he's healthy next season leading up to the trade deadline and then ship him for a 2021 pick if we don't want to sign him further. It's exciting to get immediate returns from the 2020 draft class but they will be better from 2021.

And if he ends up being injured leading up to the next trade deadline then honestly we probably haven't lost too much. He'll still only be 24.



Hes 24 right now and if teams know next years draft is supposed to be “loaded” that would make the chances of getting a first for luke even more slim.
Invictus88
Rookie
Posts: 1,190
And1: 388
Joined: Jun 25, 2013

Re: Kennards value? 

Post#34 » by Invictus88 » Mon Oct 19, 2020 11:27 pm

The_Irony wrote:
Invictus88 wrote:
Pharaoh wrote:I lumped him in with Blake at the end because for a season or 2 those guys would = approx 70 mil.

IF the cap ends up being 105 mil or so for the next few years we don't have a lot of space, especially after we retain Wood.

Luke IS worth something in the 12-18 mil range. We all agree on that.

I'd just rather not pay it as we start the full rebuild. I'd prefer we deal him for a 2020 pick in the 10-21 range and reset the timeline on his rookie deal.

Luke is a capable player when healthy, might one day be a legit 3rd/4th option on a really good team.

But he hasn't been healthy and we don't yet have our 1st and 2nd options.

Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app

We aren't really expecting to be doing anything while Blake is on the roster anyway right? Obviously if signing Luke would get in the way of retaining someone else that we do deem to be more a part of our future then we should pass. But he's 23.

To be honest I'm not even saying we need to decide this now. In fact what I am suggesting is that we don't. For all of the injury reasons you state his value is the lowest it will end up being.

Remember. He's a guy who averaged 15.8 with 40% 3 point shooting over a 28 game sample. He's 23. Let him prove he's healthy next season leading up to the trade deadline and then ship him for a 2021 pick if we don't want to sign him further. It's exciting to get immediate returns from the 2020 draft class but they will be better from 2021.

And if he ends up being injured leading up to the next trade deadline then honestly we probably haven't lost too much. He'll still only be 24.


Hes 24 right now and if teams know next years draft is supposed to be “loaded” that would make the chances of getting a first for luke even more slim.


My bad on being a year off. It snuck by me during Covid.

But sorry. Do you think a contending team is going to keep a late first or trade for a proven shooter if they need shooting help down the stretch of a season? Especially one as young as Luke is?
User avatar
The_Irony
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,269
And1: 390
Joined: Nov 28, 2002
Location: Westcoast

Re: Kennards value? 

Post#35 » by The_Irony » Mon Oct 19, 2020 11:53 pm

Invictus88 wrote:
My bad on being a year off. It snuck by me during Covid.

But sorry. Do you think a contending team is going to keep a late first or trade for a proven shooter if they need shooting help down the stretch of a season? Especially one as young as Luke is?



This fanbase believed the pistons were going to get something of value for Drummond, Reggie, Rose, and Markeiff at the deadline, and for all of that, you got a 2nd rd pick and expirings.

What's better than getting shooting help down the stretch of a season is getting shooting help for an entire season. I think every team values picks differently and Boston somehow contends and ends up with lotto picks more than they should. This season we know they have with 3 first rd picks that more than likely do not want to use the estimated 10 mill in salary it will cost drafting them. I think at this point Boston would value Luke more than their 14 or 26th pick. I dont mind waiting until 2021 but i also think if you have a good gm, that the gm will make the right pick in a "weaker" draft as well. If a team is willing to give you a top 15 pick for a player you dont see in your future, you do it. how many times has Detroit let their lottery picks go for nothing?
Invictus88
Rookie
Posts: 1,190
And1: 388
Joined: Jun 25, 2013

Re: Kennards value? 

Post#36 » by Invictus88 » Tue Oct 20, 2020 2:34 am

The_Irony wrote:
Invictus88 wrote:
My bad on being a year off. It snuck by me during Covid.

But sorry. Do you think a contending team is going to keep a late first or trade for a proven shooter if they need shooting help down the stretch of a season? Especially one as young as Luke is?



This fanbase believed the pistons were going to get something of value for Drummond, Reggie, Rose, and Markeiff at the deadline, and for all of that, you got a 2nd rd pick and expirings.

What's better than getting shooting help down the stretch of a season is getting shooting help for an entire season. I think every team values picks differently and Boston somehow contends and ends up with lotto picks more than they should. This season we know they have with 3 first rd picks that more than likely do not want to use the estimated 10 mill in salary it will cost drafting them. I think at this point Boston would value Luke more than their 14 or 26th pick. I dont mind waiting until 2021 but i also think if you have a good gm, that the gm will make the right pick in a "weaker" draft as well. If a team is willing to give you a top 15 pick for a player you dont see in your future, you do it. how many times has Detroit let their lottery picks go for nothing?


Drummond was negative value w/regards to his contract. Cleveland graciously gave us a pick that in reality wasn't necessary. Absolutely nobody was coming after him.

Reggie: Nobody believed we would get a pick back given his contract and lack of durability. He was destined to just come off the books at the end of the year if he wasn't bought out earlier (and he was). The only way we would have gotten something in a Reggie trade would be to take back negative salary in return. And then you really aren't getting something for Reggie. You'd be getting it for having to endure the bad contract.

Rose: This is still TBD. There were suitors last year but word is that Rose himself nixed the deal. He's the only player with positive value of the four that you mention.

Markeiff: It was a bit of a bummer that we didn't get a late 2nd rounder for him but not really surprising. If we didn't swing something he again was likely just being bought out.

In totality we probably ended up better than expected given that we didn't end up with Andre at the end of it. I don't know who this fanbase is that you speak of but it definitely wasn't the prevailing opinion on the boards last year.

If you have a good gm then that gm will see there's more talent to be had in 2021 and realize that Luke's value increases the moment he proves that he can play for an extended period of time. If he puts up the same numbers as last year his value increases dramatically just by staying healthy. Do we think he somehow won't do this?

I want to see what happens if he raises his ppg 4 points to 20 ppg. There's going to be ample shots to go around next year with all of the vets that left and he's a good shooter. Where does his value go then?
User avatar
The_Irony
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,269
And1: 390
Joined: Nov 28, 2002
Location: Westcoast

Re: Kennards value? 

Post#37 » by The_Irony » Tue Oct 20, 2020 2:47 am

Invictus88 wrote:
The_Irony wrote:
Invictus88 wrote:
My bad on being a year off. It snuck by me during Covid.

But sorry. Do you think a contending team is going to keep a late first or trade for a proven shooter if they need shooting help down the stretch of a season? Especially one as young as Luke is?



This fanbase believed the pistons were going to get something of value for Drummond, Reggie, Rose, and Markeiff at the deadline, and for all of that, you got a 2nd rd pick and expirings.

What's better than getting shooting help down the stretch of a season is getting shooting help for an entire season. I think every team values picks differently and Boston somehow contends and ends up with lotto picks more than they should. This season we know they have with 3 first rd picks that more than likely do not want to use the estimated 10 mill in salary it will cost drafting them. I think at this point Boston would value Luke more than their 14 or 26th pick. I dont mind waiting until 2021 but i also think if you have a good gm, that the gm will make the right pick in a "weaker" draft as well. If a team is willing to give you a top 15 pick for a player you dont see in your future, you do it. how many times has Detroit let their lottery picks go for nothing?


Drummond was negative value w/regards to his contract. Cleveland graciously gave us a pick that in reality wasn't necessary. Absolutely nobody was coming after him.

Reggie: Nobody believed we would get a pick back given his contract and lack of durability. He was destined to just come off the books at the end of the year if he wasn't bought out earlier (and he was). The only way we would have gotten something in a Reggie trade would be to take back negative salary in return. And then you really aren't getting something for Reggie. You'd be getting it for having to endure the bad contract.

Rose: This is still TBD. There were suitors last year but word is that Rose himself nixed the deal.

Markeiff: It was a bit of a bummer that we didn't get a late 2nd rounder for him but not really surprising. If we didn't swing something he again was likely just being bought out.

In totality we probably ended up better than expected given that we didn't end up with Andre at the end of it. I don't know who this fanbase is that you speak of but it definitely wasn't the prevailing opinion on the boards last year.

If you have a good gm then that gm will see there's more talent to be had in 2021 and realize that Luke's value increases the moment he proves that he can play for an extended period of time. If he puts up the same numbers as last year his value increases dramatically just by staying healthy. Do we think he somehow won't do this?

I want to see what happens if he raises his ppg 4 points to 20 ppg. There's going to be ample shots to go around next year with all of the vets that left and he's a good shooter. Where does his value go then?



This is about to be his 4th season.. when do you expect him to "breakout?". This isnt a Wood situation where he just didnt have the opportunities. Hes had the opportunities and when he didnt its because he was hurt. You had to deal with two head coaches telling the media they wish he would be aggressive and shoot more. He's not who people want him to be. I would also be weary of a player finally breaking out in a contract year. He wasn't a horrible pick but if im Weaver im not clamoring to keep an often injured player whos really a 7th/8th man with the expectations to be a 3rd/4th man in Detroit. Especially if a better team values him because the expectations arent as high and there are other stars and superstars already on the team.
Crymson
Senior
Posts: 723
And1: 260
Joined: Apr 17, 2016

Re: Kennards value? 

Post#38 » by Crymson » Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:04 am

mattao313 wrote:Disagree this isn't the same situation as KCP when the cap was increasing and players were getting crazy money. Now a lot of teams don't have a lot to spend.


KCP became a free agent in 2017, a year past the cap explosion. Very few players got paid much in that offseason, and several who opted out in search of a big payday ended up very disappointed. KCP got a big-money offer from the Pistons because SVG was a dolt.

Also Kennard imo is starting caliber a guy who is a lightsout shooter that can't be left open and can also create a little bit is great as a starter. Kennard has had games where he looked automatic on offense.


Disagree, as he's at his best when handling the ball and will never get much opportunity to do so in the starting lineup. He's also a substantial defensive liability and overall switch risk against starting-caliber opposition.

Either way, Kennard's one and only season of double-digit scoring lasted only 25 games. He's got little pedigree and he's long on injuries.
tmorgan
General Manager
Posts: 8,272
And1: 3,328
Joined: Feb 04, 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
   

Re: Kennards value? 

Post#39 » by tmorgan » Tue Oct 20, 2020 7:48 am

Good GMs, like I hope we have now, understand that value isn’t from stats, it’s from skills. Some guys that could put up numbers don’t because they make non-basketball mistakes or are in poor situations. We got one of those in Wood, and hopefully we make the most of it. Other guys do get numbers, usually on bad teams, because someone has to. Those guys (think MCW and his ROY campaign) get overvalued and often overpaid and someone gets stuck with the bill.

Luke certainly isn’t talentless. He’s a near elite shooter with a solid handle and good instincts. He definitely should be in the NBA somewhere, but he’s likely a bench scorer on a good team, and that’s without factoring in his injury history. There are certain teams that would and should take a risk on him, because they can reap the rewards if he’s healthy and be just fine if he isn’t.

We are NOT that team. It’s a full rebuild, whether Weaver and Casey say it or not, and nothing big is going to happen until Blake disappears and we make some good draft picks and smart trades. Luke has some value, and while it’s possible he has more value in the future, it’s more likely he has less unless he gets an unrealistically small deal on this contract. We don’t need him to win games, because we don’t need to win games. We need to get better. Cashing him in for a pick or two may or may not actually make us better, but it could, and keeping him serves no purpose. Move him.
User avatar
Pharaoh
RealGM
Posts: 13,091
And1: 3,252
Joined: Aug 10, 2001

Re: Kennards value? 

Post#40 » by Pharaoh » Tue Oct 20, 2020 10:05 am

tmorgan wrote:Good GMs, like I hope we have now, understand that value isn’t from stats, it’s from skills. Some guys that could put up numbers don’t because they make non-basketball mistakes or are in poor situations. We got one of those in Wood, and hopefully we make the most of it. Other guys do get numbers, usually on bad teams, because someone has to. Those guys (think MCW and his ROY campaign) get overvalued and often overpaid and someone gets stuck with the bill.

Luke certainly isn’t talentless. He’s a near elite shooter with a solid handle and good instincts. He definitely should be in the NBA somewhere, but he’s likely a bench scorer on a good team, and that’s without factoring in his injury history. There are certain teams that would and should take a risk on him, because they can reap the rewards if he’s healthy and be just fine if he isn’t.

We are NOT that team. It’s a full rebuild, whether Weaver and Casey say it or not, and nothing big is going to happen until Blake disappears and we make some good draft picks and smart trades. Luke has some value, and while it’s possible he has more value in the future, it’s more likely he has less unless he gets an unrealistically small deal on this contract. We don’t need him to win games, because we don’t need to win games. We need to get better. Cashing him in for a pick or two may or may not actually make us better, but it could, and keeping him serves no purpose. Move him.
Well said

Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app

Return to Detroit Pistons