og15 wrote:DJ was a different level contract, Reed is cheap, remember we have to think of contracts relative to cap, not in a vacuum.
I wouldn't really call having to pay them a problem either, it's a benefit you get productive players for cheap for a while, it's one of the biggest bargains in the NBA, then you decide if you want to pay or not based on how good they are. You have to pay someone. If you don't think they are good enough, you don't pay them, and then you can spend on vet FA's who you think are better if you are able.
If you keep the pipeline of young players flowing, then you can have replacements as guys price out of your range. For example Denver couldn't pay Brown, but they luckily drafted the other Braun and it extends their ability to have a productive defensive bench player for another 3 seasons (even though they are a bit different skillsets). So now they can push off having to pay big for that type of player for another 3 seasons, and when that time comes they might have created some flexibility to be able to pay him, or they could find another young guy and keep the cycle going.
$7.7m/year is a few million below MLE. This is the equivalent of a $3-4 million contract back in 13-14 when the cap was $56 million. Current cap is $136 million, so about 2.44 times more.
DJ's contract would be an equivalent of around $24 million per year right now. It's always about deciding which contracts makes sense for a team or not.
All true. The thing is, the first two years of these longshots is usually unproductive; if you're lucky, their third season is productive and you see some payoff. Paul Reed was only marginally productive for the Sixers in the last half of his third year. Yes, you get something of value for "cheap," but average it out, add in all the misses, and the numbers start to not be the bargain they appear to be.
And DJ was offered that big money--which he wasn't worth--by a somewhat desperate GSW based on potential, not production. The Clippers, equally desperate, matched. But DJ was overpaid for most of the years of his contracts with the Clippers.
And DJ was the greatest draft "steal" in our history!
Another case in point: Bol Bol. 2 teams, 1800 NBA minutes, and $6M in salary later, nothing. He will catch on somewhere and maybe even become a legit player NBA player someday, but the teams that helped develop him will have jackspit for their time, trouble and money.
Your example of Bruce Brown is another perfect case in point. Detroit [who drafted him at #42] and Brooklyn got little out of developing him. His 3rd year with the Nets was good [9 ppg], then he promptly left for Denver as a UFA. After giving the Nugs a VERY good return, he promptly opted out to go join his FOURTH team.
So far, the only real bargain was Denver signing him as a UFA. And they only got one year's worth. Now the Pacers will pay out $22 million a year and hope that a 11/4/3 guy will blossom into something worth that.
The "develop your own talent" mantra is a lot truer for baseball and the NFL, with their more restrictive labor arrangements and informal pay scales for different positions. In the NBA, a max contract guy can play any position as long as he's good. This makes for a much freer labor market, which favors the players, and the NBAPA has the players getting full market value [and more, lol] almost every step of the way.
Look, if you get a generational talent in the lottery and treat him nice, he'll probably stay. Maybe you'll hit a winner outside the lottery, but there aren't that many. After you get past the top 5 here, there's nothing to write home about.
https://www.betus.com.pa/nba/news/top-10-players-drafted-outside-of-the-lottery-since-2010/The draft is no free lunch. As you dig through the history,
productive young talent is more the work of trades and FA signings, often guys on their third or fourth team.
