**The Official Karl-Anthony Towns Thread: Part Two**

[urinesane]

Let's take a look at the to 10 salaries in the NBA last season and see who deserves their salary:

1. Stephen Curry $48,070,014
2. John Wall $47,345,760
3. Russell Westbrook $47,080,179
4. LeBron James $44,474,988
5. Kevin Durant $44,119,845
6. Bradley Beal $43,279,250
7. Paul George $42,492,492
7. Kawhi Leonard $42,492,492
7. Giannis Antetokounmpo $42,492,492
7. Damian Lillard $42,492,492

So, is John Wall worth 47+ million? What about Westbrook? Is KD REALLY worth 44+ million? Brad Beal? The Clipper twins. who only play 1/2 of their teams games? Dame, IMO, isn't worth 43 million either.

Out of those top 10 salaries, how many of them have lead their current teams to the promised land of NBA championship? Heck, how many have been to an NBA finals? 2 of them have lead their current team to the championship and only 5 have been to the finals.

Worth is a perception number. If I perceive that LeBron James is worth 50 million, then what is to stop me from paying it? Oh yeah, the cap limits, set originally to keep owners from giving out tons of money (See KG's contract prior to cap limits). However, I am willing to pay LBJ the max, just as Glen was willing to pay KAT the max. Should the super max be reserved just for the generational talents like LeBron, MJ, Kareem, Magic, KG? Sure, but that is not going to happen as long as someone is willing to pay your star more than you perceive him to be worth. If you want to keep the star, you pay him the most you can to keep him.

This is a great post.

Also, when you mentioned Lebron and worth, we have to remember that the NBA is a business. Teams don't just get paid based on production from a player, if that player sells jerseys, tickets, draws attention to the team, brings in sponsors, etc that is good for the franchise and helps their bottom line. It would be much easier if the teams only made money for wins/production, but that's not how it works. If a player brings money to the franchise, not just by winning games, that changes their "worth" by quite a bit (though obviously winning is always good).

[shrink]

Exactly. Sometimes people here wonder why HOU would want James Harden, because they are rebuilding and he’s expensive. However, a guy like Harden sells tickets, sells merchandise, and give casual fans a reason to spend a date night at a Rockets game. A guy like Towns, would fill that role, and together, they could even have extra team value by winning some games.

Stars make teams money. The creators of the CBA understand that, and that’s why max rules are in place. LeBron would likely be worth over $100 mil a year to the Lakers in a free market, with the bulk of his value NOT coming from anything he does on a basketball court.

[fattymcgee]

A lot of people here are looking for star return. But let's remember that unless that star is early in a rookie deal, you are only delaying the inevitable cap situation by a season at most. Swapping out Towns for Jaylen Brown doesn't solve the money problem. It may even exacerbate it.

Edwards makes role player level money for one more season. McDaniels makes essentially vet minimum money for one more season. Anderson and Prince make role player money for one more season on their current deals. Conley is on the books for low-level starter money for one more season.

Edwards and McDaniels are about to be third and fourth (at worst) on the salary chart. The slots that need to be replenished are below them, in the $10-20 million range. Reid and Alexander-Walker could potentially be there, but we still need more. These salary slots help keep a franchise competitive.

I'll be honest, that's why potential offers like New York, Toronto, Atlanta and Portland are potentially more intriguing to me, even though the bigger names are certainly lacking. Those mid-level salaries are a big part of what brought our franchise from perennial doormat to playoff contention. Guys like Anderson and Prince this year for us, Huerter and Monk for Sacramento, Gordon and Caldwell-Pope for Denver. Look how depleting your roster of this level of contract/player affected teams like Phoenix (Bridges, Johnson) and Dallas (Finney-Smith, Dinwiddie) during the season and even helped a team like the Lakers make a late-season run..

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't Brown help us by $10-$15M? He wouldn't be on a supermax because then they wouldn't be able to trade him for a year.

As for New York, I don't see any trade that helps us. Randle chokes more than Towns does in the playoffs, Barrett isn't great and is overpaid, Toppin hasn't shown squat and is 26, Grimes is a solid role player at best, and that leaves Quickley. Quickley did well in the regular season but his advanced stats in the playoffs were horrendous. NY is probably the worst trade partner unless we can include another team to get a different asset.

I like some of the Toronto players (especially Barnes and OG), Portland I'd love Scoot if he was available or Sharpe and Simons is ok but wouldn't want him as the main piece. I haven't heard any Atlanta speculation but like Hunter, Murray, and Bey (not sure what their contracts look like).

[shrink]

A lot of people here are looking for star return. But let's remember that unless that star is early in a rookie deal, you are only delaying the inevitable cap situation by a season at most. Swapping out Towns for Jaylen Brown doesn't solve the money problem. It may even exacerbate it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't Brown help us by $10-$15M? He wouldn't be on a supermax because then they wouldn't be able to trade him for a year.

Yes. The numbers are:

Towns supermax extension is an expected $224 mil for four years, starting 2024-25 season (35%)

Browns supermax extension $290 mil for five years, starting 2025-26 season (35%)

Browns max extension is an expected $189 mil for four years, starting 2025-26 season (30%)

This is an estimate, because until next year, the NBA won’t know how much money they made that season, and their basketball related income determines the salary cap. Max deals are a percentage of the salary cap, but it’s possible we could see a cap spike in 2025-26 for Brown, with the new tv deal. Also it’s unlikely, but not impossible that the Celtics refuse to pay the supermax, or Brown turns it down. In that case, BOS will try to trade Brown, and his new extension will just be for the standard 30% max.

[TimberKat]

Let's take a look at the to 10 salaries in the NBA last season and see who deserves their salary:

1. Stephen Curry $48,070,014
2. John Wall $47,345,760
3. Russell Westbrook $47,080,179
4. LeBron James $44,474,988
5. Kevin Durant $44,119,845
6. Bradley Beal $43,279,250
7. Paul George $42,492,492
7. Kawhi Leonard $42,492,492
7. Giannis Antetokounmpo $42,492,492
7. Damian Lillard $42,492,492

I think the ones that shouldn't be on this list are Wall, Westbrook, and Beal.

How about we think of a different pay system. Instead of Max and SuperMax, each team has 2 20M bonus slots. The team can choose to give it to whoever they want each year. So, Wall signs a 25M contract and gets his 20M bonus to make him a 45M man. Two years later, he really sucked, and Wizards give the 20M to Beal. Durant wants out of BKN, sure, he only makes 25M with Suns and get Paul's bonus slot next year. That creates an incentive for an elite player to sign with BKN next year. Simmons can sit on his butt for 15M but could make 35M if he plays. I like to see Kyrie sit out being unvaccinated under this pay system. His bonus would get re-assigned to Harden. Teams can choose to give it to the same player every year or rotate it between their core players.

We could figure out what is the right bonus amount and could have some of the same Max/SuperMax requirements. Will need a few rules to close the loopholes but the idea is to give more of the trade power back to the team, players get pay by performance, and reduce the bad contracts.

[Slim Tubby]

Let's take a look at the to 10 salaries in the NBA last season and see who deserves their salary:

1. Stephen Curry $48,070,014
2. John Wall $47,345,760
3. Russell Westbrook $47,080,179
4. LeBron James $44,474,988
5. Kevin Durant $44,119,845
6. Bradley Beal $43,279,250
7. Paul George $42,492,492
7. Kawhi Leonard $42,492,492
7. Giannis Antetokounmpo $42,492,492
7. Damian Lillard $42,492,492

I think the ones that shouldn't be on this list are Wall, Westbrook, and Beal.

How about we think of a different pay system. Instead of Max and SuperMax, each team has 2 20M bonus slots. The team can choose to give it to whoever they want each year. So, Wall signs a 25M contract and gets his 20M bonus to make him a 45M man. Two years later, he really sucked, and Wizards give the 20M to Beal. Durant wants out of BKN, sure, he only makes 25M with Suns and get Paul's bonus slot next year. That creates an incentive for an elite player to sign with BKN next year. Simmons can sit on his butt for 15M but could make 35M if he plays. I like to see Kyrie sit out being unvaccinated under this pay system. His bonus would get re-assigned to Harden. Teams can choose to give it to the same player every year or rotate it between their core players.

We could figure out what is the right bonus amount and could have some of the same Max/SuperMax requirements. Will need a few rules to close the loopholes but the idea is to give more of the trade power back to the team, players get pay by performance, and reduce the bad contracts.

My Dad would like to buy you a beer. He's been preaching for 25+ years that all professional sports athletes should be on a "pay for play" schedule to reward current/recent performances.

[TimberKat]

Bam in 4 games so far:
41.3min; 45.6FG%; 0 3s; 12.5RB;1blk; 22.3pts

7 TO; -18 in game 4
7 for 21; -20 in game 3
+17 in game 2 win
26pt; -6 in game1

While Jokic puts up
40.8min; 55.0FG%; 43.8%3s; 13.5RB; 1.5blk; 30.8pts

If Towns or Gobert puts up Bam's numbers in a playoff series, I think some of you will say they choke and defense sucks and want to trade them for Bam

[shrink]

Bam in 4 games so far:
41.3min; 45.6FG%; 0 3s; 12.5RB;1blk; 22.3pts

7 TO; -18 in game 4
7 for 21; -20 in game 3
+17 in game 2 win
26pt; -6 in game1

While Jokic puts up
40.8min; 55.0FG%; 43.8%3s; 13.5RB; 1.5blk; 30.8pts

If Towns or Gobert puts up Bam's numbers in a playoff series, I think some of you will say they choke and defense sucks and want to trade them for Bam

So true. For the record, Towns Career Playoff Stats

35.8 MIN, .471 FG%, 1.2 3’s, 11.4 RB, 1.3 BLK, 18.6 PTS

[Klomp]

Read on Twitter

[urinesane]

Read on Twitter

[shrink]

That’s great news to me! The thing this franchise needs more than anything is continuity.

I don’t know if it’s a MIN thing, or a national thing, but it seems that the moment a player, coach, GM, or owner does something some anonymous fan dislikes, we see a “FIRE THAT GUY!” rally cry. I’m watching the playoffs , with a DEN team that has been together a long time about to win a championship. We beat that team in Game 82 a few years back, and we’ve made major changes while they stayed the course. Look who has gotten more and more successful. This constant turnover in Minnesota has really hurt this franchise, and I’d be happy to see them run everything back, and get a look at what we have here.

[urinesane]

That’s great news to me! The thing this franchise needs more than anything is continuity.

I don’t know if it’s a MIN thing, or a national thing, but it seems that the moment a player, coach, GM, or owner does something some anonymous fan dislikes, we see a “FIRE THAT GUY!” rally cry. I’m watching the playoffs , with a DEN team that has been together a long time about to win a championship. We beat that team in Game 82 a few years back, and we’ve made major changes while they stayed the course. Look who has gotten more and more successful. This constant turnover in Minnesota has really hurt this franchise, and I’d be happy to see them run everything back, and get a look at what we have here.

Absolutely, we've become a society of instant gratification and perceptions ruling the day. The teams that have had the most longterm success have also been the ones that have stayed the course, even when many were probably calling for change (often for change's sake).

When it comes to talking about Jokic, Embiid, and KAT people always point to how Jokic and Embiid have continued to develop throughout the years, now being at MVP level. They've used this argument to diminish KAT as if they are all occurring in a vacuum with the same variables at play (outside of Jokic, Embiid, KAT).

Now, I am not saying that KAT is currently on their level, but the main thing those two have had the benefit of that KAT has never had is consistency and continuity within the organization. In addition to that consistency, Jokic and Embiid haven't really been asked to change their games for the benefit of the team. KAT has not only had inconsistency in every aspect of the organization, coaches, players, but he's also been asked to be a different player in many of these different situations. All things considered, he's done a pretty good job, but in order to be an MVP, I believe that you need consistency AND years of being able to craft your game down to the tiny nuanced details.

When you are asked to play a game you aren't used to it's difficult to carve out "your game" because you're busy playing with the team's current variable in mind, not necessarily how to best maximize your personal skillset.

Obviously it can't be guaranteed, but I think a lot of the criticisms of KAT wouldn't hold up if he'd been in Denver or Philadelphia all these years. He'd have had more winning pieces around him, consistent coaching, and a franchise willing to build around him (rather than trying to accumulate talent and throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks each year). The adaptability of KAT is impressive, but it spreads him too thin IMO. The KAT that everyone has hoping he could be can only exist with consistency of the franchise, team, and his role.

[wolves_89]

Also saw this quote from the Wolfson podcast:

"But what I can tell you, in real time, is I’ve checked with two teams’ front office executives, pretty high up… in fact, very high up, that make logical sense. That, if the Wolves were to trade Karl-Anthony Towns; if they let the league know, ‘hey, we’re interested in trading Karl-Anthony Town, that these two teams, undoubtedly, would at least inquire. Well, these two executives told me, so far, crickets. They have not had any trade dialog with the Wolves. I’m just saying, right now in the moment, my sense is the Wolves run this thing back."

[Baseline81]

Read on Twitter

Of course the organization feels this way.

Every person with a semblance of a brain knew this would be the result, especially citing both the health of Towns and lack of game time with the team. It won't work, of course. Something else will come up as it always does.

Unfortunately, with the salaries of Towns, Gobert, Edwards and McDaniels, a significant trade is on the horizon, whether the team wants to admit it or not.

[Baseline81]

That’s great news to me! The thing this franchise needs more than anything is continuity.

I don’t know if it’s a MIN thing, or a national thing, but it seems that the moment a player, coach, GM, or owner does something some anonymous fan dislikes, we see a “FIRE THAT GUY!” rally cry. I’m watching the playoffs , with a DEN team that has been together a long time about to win a championship. We beat that team in Game 82 a few years back, and we’ve made major changes while they stayed the course. Look who has gotten more and more successful. This constant turnover in Minnesota has really hurt this franchise, and I’d be happy to see them run everything back, and get a look at what we have here.

Because we all predicted Butler to throw his toys out of the pram. From there everything went into a downward spiral.

I'd love to hear your opinion when it is acceptable to finally call for someone's head. Did you agree or disagree with letting Ryan Saunders (or Thibs) go, or were you one who wished he was given more time?

Point is, sometimes you can see an issue and no matter how long of a leash a coach or player is given, it won't be corrected.

[urinesane]

Read on Twitter

Of course the organization feels this way.

Every person with a semblance of a brain knew this would be the result, especially citing both the health of Towns and lack of game time with the team. It won't work, of course. Something else will come up as it always does.

Unfortunately, with the salaries of Towns, Gobert, Edwards and McDaniels, a significant trade is on the horizon, whether the team wants to admit it or not.

How far away is that horizon?

The truth is that they don't have to do anything right now. This isn't Thelma and Louise right about to go off the cliff, and while many people point to salaries, softness, etc. They are just trying to find justifications for their emotional reaction to the Gobert trade and last season's disappointment. It has nothing to do with what's best for the team or the fans and everything to do with reacting out of fear and anger (or disappointment).

Most of the people calling for massive change were the same ones that were 100% sure that the Gobert experiment would fail, but what is success in their minds? The pieces they traded were not going to get them competing for championships. The ceiling was taking a team to 7 games in the first round or a 2nd round appearance.

You can point to things from this season to confirm your bias, but it's really only confirming that when you are trying something very different, it doesn't always work right away. Despite KAT missing 52 games in a row, they still made the playoffs and played the best team in the league tougher than most, without key players.

That's a good thing. Let them have another season to figure it out rather than calling it a failure and looking to confirm what you already think. If it doesn't work, KAT and Gobert have value, it's not a lost cause or a cliff they are driving over, they can use the data this season (hopefully with much better injury luck) and use that to make a deal that shores up the team's weaknesses.

Rather than selling off KAT for pieces that don't help the team win now or even in the next few seasons.

[shrink]

I'd love to hear your opinion when it is acceptable to finally call for someone's head. Did you agree or disagree with letting Ryan Saunders (or Thibs) go, or were you one who wished he was given more time?

Point is, sometimes you can see an issue and no matter how long of a leash a coach or player is given, it won't be corrected.

To me, the main reason you fire a coach, good or bad, is that they lose the locker room. At a time when player empowerment and stardom rules, coaches need every player listening and pulling in a team direction.

And if you see me as someone who never agrees with firing anyone, it will surprise you to discover that this is why I thought firing the beloved Flip Saunders in 2005 was the right move.

Thibs had to go. He split the team in half, so guys were either on the Jimmy-Taj-DRose team, or the KAT-Wiggins team, and he seemed to do that intentionally. Then, with his mismanagement of the GM job when Jimmy demanded a trade, he definitely needed to go.

Ryan Saunders - I don’t know enough about coaching to make a good call on that one. And obviously, I think firing Chris Finch is ridiculous.

[Baseline81]

To me, the main reason you fire a coach, good or bad, is that they lose the locker room. At a time when player empowerment and stardom rules, coaches need every player listening and pulling in a team direction.

And if you see me as someone who never agrees with firing anyone, it will surprise you to discover that this is why I thought firing the beloved Flip Saunders in 2005 was the right move.

Thibs had to go. He split the team in half, so guys were either on the Jimmy-Taj-DRose team, or the KAT-Wiggins team, and he seemed to do that intentionally. Then, with his mismanagement of the GM job when Jimmy demanded a trade, he definitely needed to go.

Ryan Saunders - I don’t know enough about coaching to make a good call on that one.

Do you agree with the Milwaukee's decision then? Because it wasn't based on losing the locker room. The same with Monty Williams in Phoenix.

There are other valid reasons why an organization goes another direction. Simply put, the front office believes another can take the team further.

[shrink]

To me, the main reason you fire a coach, good or bad, is that they lose the locker room. At a time when player empowerment and stardom rules, coaches need every player listening and pulling in a team direction.

And if you see me as someone who never agrees with firing anyone, it will surprise you to discover that this is why I thought firing the beloved Flip Saunders in 2005 was the right move.

Thibs had to go. He split the team in half, so guys were either on the Jimmy-Taj-DRose team, or the KAT-Wiggins team, and he seemed to do that intentionally. Then, with his mismanagement of the GM job when Jimmy demanded a trade, he definitely needed to go.

Ryan Saunders - I don’t know enough about coaching to make a good call on that one.

Do you agree with the Milwaukee's decision then? Because it wasn't based on losing the locker room. The same with Monty Williams in Phoenix.

There are other valid reasons why an organization goes another direction. Simply put, the front office believes another can take the team further.

I don’t know about MIL, but I definitely think PHX will regret getting rid of Monte. You can see how much other franchises value him, by the ridiculous contract Detroit offered him to get him to not just take a year off.

But remember, firing a coach isn’t always an organizational decision. I think this one was all about new owner Matt Ishbia.

[Klomp]

Absolutely, we've become a society of instant gratification and perceptions ruling the day. The teams that have had the most longterm success have also been the ones that have stayed the course, even when many were probably calling for change (often for change's sake).

When it comes to talking about Jokic, Embiid, and KAT people always point to how Jokic and Embiid have continued to develop throughout the years, now being at MVP level. They've used this argument to diminish KAT as if they are all occurring in a vacuum with the same variables at play (outside of Jokic, Embiid, KAT).

Now, I am not saying that KAT is currently on their level, but the main thing those two have had the benefit of that KAT has never had is consistency and continuity within the organization. In addition to that consistency, Jokic and Embiid haven't really been asked to change their games for the benefit of the team. KAT has not only had inconsistency in every aspect of the organization, coaches, players, but he's also been asked to be a different player in many of these different situations. All things considered, he's done a pretty good job, but in order to be an MVP, I believe that you need consistency AND years of being able to craft your game down to the tiny nuanced details.

When you are asked to play a game you aren't used to it's difficult to carve out "your game" because you're busy playing with the team's current variable in mind, not necessarily how to best maximize your personal skillset.

Obviously it can't be guaranteed, but I think a lot of the criticisms of KAT wouldn't hold up if he'd been in Denver or Philadelphia all these years. He'd have had more winning pieces around him, consistent coaching, and a franchise willing to build around him (rather than trying to accumulate talent and throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks each year). The adaptability of KAT is impressive, but it spreads him too thin IMO. The KAT that everyone has hoping he could be can only exist with consistency of the franchise, team, and his role.

Both of those teams still had to make moves in order to get where they are.

Denver had to trade for Aaron Gordon.
Philadelphia traded for James Harden. And earlier Jimmy Butler.
And both front offices made coaching changes along the way.

Teams just don't traditionally develop straight into a title contender. Significant changes have to be made along the way.