T&T board top 10 worst contracts - Vote for #9!

[dorkestra]

You're so wrong dude.

45m vs. over 90m

Hayward averaging 10/5/3 PER 14

Johnson averaging 8/3/2 in almost 10 minutes less than Hayward PER 12

You're literally solely banking on Hayward returning to form.

I'm guessing you forget what Paul George looked like when he got hurt, and wouldn't pay him a max contract after the fact either? Because there's a reason Hayward hasn't put up numbers. There's a different reason for JJ.

I'm confused to the point you're attempting to make.

I could care less the reason why a player is under-performing and the argument here isn't whos sub-par performance is most justifiable. The argument and question at hand is who has less trade value and the truth of the matter Hayward is a shell of himself and is owed 90m dollars. Johnson is indeed a bad contract, but not nearly as terrible as Hayward and would be a lot easier to move imo.

I think the point bondom is making is that if Hayward has a mean reversion like Paul George did, his contract won't be so bad. There is a known issue that detracted from his value (the injury) and there is a clear catalyst which could allow him to perform better (which is getting healthier). Let's say it's 50/50 that he gets better, but he is making twice the salary of James Johnson. Well there isn't much likelihood for a catalyst to suddenly improve Johnson's impact. You're basically saying do I want to overpay 15million per year to a guy worth maybe 8 or 9? Or do I want to pay 30 per year to a guy who is currently worth 8 or 9, but may improve considerably. I don't think there is a clear answer, but I chose Hayward given that even before his injury, he wasn't that close to Paul George level of production.

[bondom34]

You're so wrong dude.

45m vs. over 90m

Hayward averaging 10/5/3 PER 14

Johnson averaging 8/3/2 in almost 10 minutes less than Hayward PER 12

You're literally solely banking on Hayward returning to form.

I'm guessing you forget what Paul George looked like when he got hurt, and wouldn't pay him a max contract after the fact either? Because there's a reason Hayward hasn't put up numbers. There's a different reason for JJ.

I'm confused to the point you're attempting to make.

I could care less the reason why a player is under-performing and the argument here isn't whos sub-par performance is most justifiable. The argument and question at hand is who has less trade value and the truth of the matter Hayward is a shell of himself and is owed 90m dollars. Johnson is indeed a bad contract, but not nearly as terrible as Hayward and would be a lot easier to move imo.

Yes, because he just returned from injury and has gradually been improving. You'd expect him to look bad right now, any expectation otherwise wasn't reasonable.

If Hayward was available teams would be lined up to take him. Johnson not so much.

I'm guessing you forget what Paul George looked like when he got hurt, and wouldn't pay him a max contract after the fact either? Because there's a reason Hayward hasn't put up numbers. There's a different reason for JJ.

I'm confused to the point you're attempting to make.

I could care less the reason why a player is under-performing and the argument here isn't whos sub-par performance is most justifiable. The argument and question at hand is who has less trade value and the truth of the matter Hayward is a shell of himself and is owed 90m dollars. Johnson is indeed a bad contract, but not nearly as terrible as Hayward and would be a lot easier to move imo.

I think the point bondom is making is that if Hayward has a mean reversion like Paul George did, his contract won't be so bad. There is a known issue that detracted from his value (the injury) and there is a clear catalyst which could allow him to perform better (which is getting healthier). Let's say it's 50/50 that he gets better, but he is making twice the salary of James Johnson. Well there isn't much likelihood for a catalyst to suddenly improve Johnson's impact. You're basically saying do I want to overpay 15million per year to a guy worth maybe 8 or 9? Or do I want to pay 30 per year to a guy who is currently worth 8 or 9, but may improve considerably. I don't think there is a clear answer, but I chose Hayward given that even before his injury, he wasn't that close to Paul George level of production.

Mostly this is what I'm saying, but I think Hayward was about as good his last full healthy year as George was in that season.

[Magic_Johnny12]

I'm guessing you forget what Paul George looked like when he got hurt, and wouldn't pay him a max contract after the fact either? Because there's a reason Hayward hasn't put up numbers. There's a different reason for JJ.

I'm confused to the point you're attempting to make.

I could care less the reason why a player is under-performing and the argument here isn't whos sub-par performance is most justifiable. The argument and question at hand is who has less trade value and the truth of the matter Hayward is a shell of himself and is owed 90m dollars. Johnson is indeed a bad contract, but not nearly as terrible as Hayward and would be a lot easier to move imo.

I think the point bondom is making is that if Hayward has a mean reversion like Paul George did, his contract won't be so bad. There is a known issue that detracted from his value (the injury) and there is a clear catalyst which could allow him to perform better (which is getting healthier). Let's say it's 50/50 that he gets better, but he is making twice the salary of James Johnson. Well there isn't much likelihood for a catalyst to suddenly improve Johnson's impact. You're basically saying do I want to overpay 15million per year to a guy worth maybe 8 or 9? Or do I want to pay 30 per year to a guy who is currently worth 8 or 9, but may improve considerably. I don't think there is a clear answer, but I chose Hayward given that even before his injury, he wasn't that close to Paul George level of production.

Understood. In my eyes the potential and cost of Johnson becoming an average rotation player is greater and outweighs Hayward at his cost and his potential of becoming an allstar caliber player.

[bondom34]

I'm confused to the point you're attempting to make.

I could care less the reason why a player is under-performing and the argument here isn't whos sub-par performance is most justifiable. The argument and question at hand is who has less trade value and the truth of the matter Hayward is a shell of himself and is owed 90m dollars. Johnson is indeed a bad contract, but not nearly as terrible as Hayward and would be a lot easier to move imo.

I think the point bondom is making is that if Hayward has a mean reversion like Paul George did, his contract won't be so bad. There is a known issue that detracted from his value (the injury) and there is a clear catalyst which could allow him to perform better (which is getting healthier). Let's say it's 50/50 that he gets better, but he is making twice the salary of James Johnson. Well there isn't much likelihood for a catalyst to suddenly improve Johnson's impact. You're basically saying do I want to overpay 15million per year to a guy worth maybe 8 or 9? Or do I want to pay 30 per year to a guy who is currently worth 8 or 9, but may improve considerably. I don't think there is a clear answer, but I chose Hayward given that even before his injury, he wasn't that close to Paul George level of production.

Understood. In my eyes the potential and cost of Johnson becoming an average rotation player is greater and outweighs Hayward at his cost and his potential of becoming an allstar caliber player.

I'd strongly disagree, but if that's your POV can't argue it, just difference of opinion.

[dorkestra]

I do think James Johnson has a lot of positive intangibles - he's the enforcer on the Heat and his intensity can fuel the team (as it did at times versus the Sixers in last years playoffs).

[becorz]

Vote Mozgov

Nominate Mills (dorkestra is right!)

[vxmike]

2018/19 - $11,571,429
2019/20 - $12,428,571
2020/21 - $13,285,714

This is Patty Mills remaining contract. He is thirty years old now. His VORP is just over zero, his PER is 12. Averaging 8.9 points and 2.8 on a TS of 56%

That’s barely over the MLE though. Mills is a good shooter, gives solid defensive effort and is considered a great teammate.

It’s a bit high in $ but it’s not a crippling albatross.

[vxmike]

Vote: Hayward

Nom: Fournier followed by Fultz

[Dr Positivity]

Hayward 9
Mozgov 5
Waiters 4
Anderson 3
Turner 1
Powell 1
Hayward 1

Crabbe 4
Mills 2
Fournier 2
TJ 1
LaVine 1
Porter 1
Schroeder 1

[Slava]

Waiters, I thought Riley lost his mind when he offered that contract.

[Magic_Johnny12]

Hayward 9
Mozgov 5
Waiters 4
Anderson 3
Turner 1
Powell 1
Hayward 1

Crabbe 4
Mills 2
Fournier 2
TJ 1
LaVine 1
Porter 1
Schroeder 1

You have Hayward on that twice btw making it a total of x10 votes.

[Magic_Johnny12]

How wasn’t Biyombo voted once

He is owed the most out of players that “suck so bad they’re better in a suit on the bench”.

If people even think there’s a 0.0001 percent chance of him opting out they are truly truly mistaken.

[gom]

Waiters, Biyombo, Anderson, Mahinmi so much garbage getting so much money and only 2 spots left!

Waiters! 3 yr deal.

Waiters, I thought Riley lost his mind when he offered that contract.

So happy he is back on Sunday. Hope he can stay healthy.