The Jaylen Nowell Thread

[Biff Cooper]

Seems fairer for all to wait. Let Nowell have a fantastic season and increase his leaguewide demand. Let the Wolves decide on the relative importance of Nowell, DLo, and Reid for the future squads and offer appropriate FA deal(s).

Waiting carries risk for all involved. Nowell tears an ACL and now instead of getting paid next year he misses a chunk of time and comes back on a minimum (if he comes back at all that year depending on timing of the injury,) to prove he is capable. Likewise if Nowell has a 6th man of the year worthy season the cost per year to the Wolves might double. Also the lack of RFA means failing to extend him or anyone might be seen as a lack of interest or faith by the player to the organization. Deals now mitigate risk, but some guys want to take the risk to bet on themselves. Fair is a hard thing to measure in a situation like this.

Yes there is risk for him. He can take out an insurance policy on himself though to mitigate some risk. Everyone knows that he is worth more than $3-4M a year though, it is just all the Timberwolves are willing to offer at this point in time due to their cap situation going forward.

For the Wolves next off-season, they will have maybe $35M under the lux with only 10 guys under contract assuming options are picked up. I think they are going to be willing to go into the lux to pay both DLo and Nowell only if they both prove to have value on the court. With the number of moving pieces right now, it is tough for the Wolves to predict exactly who will have value on the court this season. I think we feel pretty comfortable with Gobert, Towns, Edwards, Anderson, Prince, and McDaniels that they will not be on a "bad" contract in the 2023-24 season. Moore, Minnott, MacLuaghlin, and Knight will be making relatively small contracts in 23-24, so we'll assume they won't be an issue. Anyone else that will be making a "significant" portion of your salary total better be having a positive impact on the floor. I'm fine with them waiting to make sure DLo and Nowell seem like they are good fits with our new big-centric team before paying either one of them. Hopefully it all works out and we are celebrating a World Title and then running into luxury tax zone to run it back again, but TBD.

[Dewey]

If we don't plan to keep Reid/Nowell come mid-season, maybe the lower salary numbers could potentially make it easier to move them for an expiring and/or net some future draft capital.

[winforlose]

Seems fairer for all to wait. Let Nowell have a fantastic season and increase his leaguewide demand. Let the Wolves decide on the relative importance of Nowell, DLo, and Reid for the future squads and offer appropriate FA deal(s).

Waiting carries risk for all involved. Nowell tears an ACL and now instead of getting paid next year he misses a chunk of time and comes back on a minimum (if he comes back at all that year depending on timing of the injury,) to prove he is capable. Likewise if Nowell has a 6th man of the year worthy season the cost per year to the Wolves might double. Also the lack of RFA means failing to extend him or anyone might be seen as a lack of interest or faith by the player to the organization. Deals now mitigate risk, but some guys want to take the risk to bet on themselves. Fair is a hard thing to measure in a situation like this.

Yes there is risk for him. He can take out an insurance policy on himself though to mitigate some risk. Everyone knows that he is worth more than $3-4M a year though, it is just all the Timberwolves are willing to offer at this point in time due to their cap situation going forward.

For the Wolves next off-season, they will have maybe $35M under the lux with only 10 guys under contract assuming options are picked up. I think they are going to be willing to go into the lux to pay both DLo and Nowell only if they both prove to have value on the court. With the number of moving pieces right now, it is tough for the Wolves to predict exactly who will have value on the court this season. I think we feel pretty comfortable with Gobert, Towns, Edwards, Anderson, Prince, and McDaniels that they will not be on a "bad" contract in the 2023-24 season. Moore, Minnott, MacLuaghlin, and Knight will be making relatively small contracts in 23-24, so we'll assume they won't be an issue. Anyone else that will be making a "significant" portion of your salary total better be having a positive impact on the floor. I'm fine with them waiting to make sure DLo and Nowell seem like they are good fits with our new big-centric team before paying either one of them. Hopefully it all works out and we are celebrating a World Title and then running into luxury tax zone to run it back again, but TBD.

I just had this discussion on CanisHoopus. Gonna copy and paste my own statement here “ The original plan may have been to let Dlo walk for a max contract slot for the 23/24 season. Then, the Gobert trade happened and the slot will no longer be available. Now our whole model has changed from an under the tax team to an over the tax team. The key to being a good over the tax team is to create trade room by signing your talent to acceptable yet high deals. For example, Dlo at a max doesn’t move. But Dlo at 25 mil might move if he has a good year. The key is we want to pay as much as the ownership will tolerate while not paying so much as to make him a negative trade piece. The same is true of Naz and Nowell. If we pay them too little, then we cannot move them if/when we need/want to. If we pay them to too much then we need to attach assets to move them if we need/want to. It is not an easy needle to thread, but it is an essential one when you lack cap space.”

35 million under the tax is the wrong measure. The cap is listed at 133 million and the tax line is listed at 161 million. Using your number which I have not verified 161-35 is 126 million. That means we have 7 million plus the MLE and our bird rights to finish the roster. If we don’t resign Dlo we are using the MLE on our starting PG and if we also don’t sign Naz and Nowell we are painfully limited in what we can bring in.

[winforlose]

If we don't plan to keep Reid/Nowell come mid-season, maybe the lower salary numbers could potentially make it easier to move them for an expiring and/or net some future draft capital.

Future draft capital is nice, but not a major goal on a team trying to contend. Naz is not likely to get a ton of minutes this year but his depth is critical. Are we likely gonna get a high value on low playing time Naz, I doubt it.

Nowell is badly needed bench scoring, guard depth, and is only 23. I don’t see another team giving full value at mid season as an expiring. Better to keep him and lose him for nothing then to sell him for a couple seconds.

Plus how are gonna replace his actual value in our salary range next year?

[Klomp]

If we don't plan to keep Reid/Nowell come mid-season, maybe the lower salary numbers could potentially make it easier to move them for an expiring and/or net some future draft capital.

Future draft capital is nice, but not a major goal on a team trying to contend.

Draft capital is hugely important for teams trying to contend. Have you not paid attention this offseason? We don't have Rudy Gobert without draft capital.

[Biff Cooper]

35 million under the tax is the wrong measure. The cap is listed at 133 million and the tax line is listed at 161 million. Using your number which I have not verified 161-35 is 126 million. That means we have 7 million plus the MLE and our bird rights to finish the roster. If we don’t resign Dlo we are using the MLE on our starting PG and if we also don’t sign Naz and Nowell we are painfully limited in what we can bring in.

Figuring the lux level is about $150M this year, I bumped it up $5M for next year. I would guess your $161 is closer than my winged 155, but both are estimates. Assuming McLaughlin, Forbes, & Prince options are team options are picked up on Ant, McDaniels, and Knight, we are just under $120M for 10 guys.

[winforlose]

If we don't plan to keep Reid/Nowell come mid-season, maybe the lower salary numbers could potentially make it easier to move them for an expiring and/or net some future draft capital.

Future draft capital is nice, but not a major goal on a team trying to contend.

Draft capital is hugely important for teams trying to contend. Have you not paid attention this offseason? We don't have Rudy Gobert without draft capital.

Let me clarify. Having a draft pick in 2027 doesn’t help you win in 2022/23. Getting 2 2nds for Nowell isn’t going to make up for the loss of production in the playoffs. We sold the future to win now. Selling bench depth to rebuild the future is counter productive to the win now goal. Especially if the only reason your selling that depth is to save money the following year or to try and return some immediate value rather than losing him for nothing. Winning more regular season games, looking better in the playoffs, maybe winning an extra playoff game for having more contributors, all of this increases the team ability to recruit free agents. Keeping Nowell even if he leaves next year has value.

[Klomp]

Future draft capital is nice, but not a major goal on a team trying to contend.

Draft capital is hugely important for teams trying to contend. Have you not paid attention this offseason? We don't have Rudy Gobert without draft capital.

Let me clarify. Having a draft pick in 2027 doesn’t help you win in 2022/23. Getting 2 2nds for Nowell isn’t going to make up for the loss of production in the playoffs. We sold the future to win now. Selling bench depth to rebuild the future is counter productive to the win now goal. Especially if the only reason your selling that depth is to save money the following year or to try and return some immediate value rather than losing him for nothing. Winning more regular season games, looking better in the playoffs, maybe winning an extra playoff game for having more contributors, all of this increases the team ability to recruit free agents. Keeping Nowell even if he leaves next year has value.

You can't only look at the next move. You have to look at how the next move affects the next move after that. It's a domino effect. We have depth. You may not like it, but Austin Rivers and Bryn Forbes are NBA level depth for playoff caliber teams. They have been for their whole careers. Signing them can free up the possibility of possibly trading someone like Nowell (who doesn't seem willing to sign a team-friendly deal which is important after the Gobert trade) to recoup some draft capital lost by trading for Gobert which can be used down the road to add another impact player in the future.

[winforlose]

Draft capital is hugely important for teams trying to contend. Have you not paid attention this offseason? We don't have Rudy Gobert without draft capital.

Let me clarify. Having a draft pick in 2027 doesn’t help you win in 2022/23. Getting 2 2nds for Nowell isn’t going to make up for the loss of production in the playoffs. We sold the future to win now. Selling bench depth to rebuild the future is counter productive to the win now goal. Especially if the only reason your selling that depth is to save money the following year or to try and return some immediate value rather than losing him for nothing. Winning more regular season games, looking better in the playoffs, maybe winning an extra playoff game for having more contributors, all of this increases the team ability to recruit free agents. Keeping Nowell even if he leaves next year has value.

You can't only look at the next move. You have to look at how the next move affects the next move after that. It's a domino effect. We have depth. You may not like it, but Austin Rivers and Bryn Forbes are NBA level depth for playoff caliber teams. They have been for their whole careers. Signing them can free up the possibility of possibly trading someone like Nowell (who doesn't seem willing to sign a team-friendly deal which is important after the Gobert trade) to recoup some draft capital lost by trading for Gobert which can be used down the road to add another impact player in the future.

3 questions

1. What do you think the trade value of Nowell is in this hypothetical mid season deal?

2. Did you see Rivers and Forbes numbers in Denver last year and have you read what Denver fans thought about those guys in key game performances?

3. Why is a team friendly deal important? I am honestly asking as I think it would be somewhere between a bad thing and a terrible thing.

[Zonarosa]

…you…think…having functional players on team-friendly deals is on a scale between bad and terrible.

i…okay.

[winforlose]

…you…think…having functional players on team-friendly deals is on a scale between bad and terrible.

i…okay.

Team friendly deals don’t allow for good trade values in above the tax teams. You want low enough to still be good value but high enough to be worth similar value assets from other teams. Otherwise you need to move two for one like needing to move Prince with Nowell to get a value player back.

[KGdaBom]

…you…think…having functional players on team-friendly deals is on a scale between bad and terrible.

i…okay.

It's a very strange kind of logic, but it actually makes total sense.

[winforlose]

…you…think…having functional players on team-friendly deals is on a scale between bad and terrible.

i…okay.

It's a very strange kind of logic, but it actually makes total sense.

The way you hate the 3 point shot is the way I hate the Lux tax system. I just want a good old fashioned hard cap with a soft cap below it that can ONLY be breached by bird rights. Tax system invites big markets to buy wins. That said, if it is the game we must play, let’s it at least play it the way it is designed to be played. In an ideal world 4/13 would be a good thing for us. But let’s say we must move him (he just hates it here,) who can we get for 3.5?

[Zonarosa]

…you…think…having functional players on team-friendly deals is on a scale between bad and terrible.

i…okay.

It's a very strange kind of logic, but it actually makes total sense.

toronto won a title with siakam and anunoby still on their small deals. milwaukee had portis on the cheap. the dubs had porter, poole and payton. they all had a big hand in their clubs winning titles, and all were on team friendly deals.

point being - if you’re in the realm of contention, it’s those cheap role players that will put you over the top. if you’re getting positive production on a cheap deal with no negative effects to team chemistry, it’s not likely you’re going to rock the boat by making a deal in that scenario anyways. so i just don’t see any possible way it could be viewed as “bad to terrible”.

[winforlose]

…you…think…having functional players on team-friendly deals is on a scale between bad and terrible.

i…okay.

It's a very strange kind of logic, but it actually makes total sense.

toronto won a title with siakam and anunoby still on their small deals. milwaukee had portis on the cheap. the dubs had porter, poole and payton. they all had a big hand in their clubs winning titles, and all were on team friendly deals.

point being - if you’re in the realm of contention, it’s those cheap role players that will put you over the top. if you’re getting positive production on a cheap deal with no negative effects to team chemistry, it’s not likely you’re going to rock the boat by making a deal in that scenario anyways. so i just don’t see any possible way it could be viewed as “bad to terrible”.

If you assume Ant is getting a max, and you know that KAT and Rudy will both be super max when that happens, then you know we are an above the tax team. That really restricts roster moves. The MLE is the big one (tax payer is smaller than non tax payer but does adjust with the cap,) and then outside of minimums you basically need to trade. Having low salaries on good players in such situations can make it hard to return positive players one for one. Higher salaries (not too high or the contract turns negative,) becomes an asset in trade dynamics. It may sound weird but if you really dig into it you will start to see it.

Edit to add: your point about Toronto isn’t bad or wrong, but it just deals with a slightly different reality. They just happened to be a tax team, we are trying two build a tax team in anticipation of being over for multiple years in a row. Believe me, I know it is hard to make that mind set transition. But, once you do, I think you will start to see the point has merit.

[shrink]

…you…think…having functional players on team-friendly deals is on a scale between bad and terrible.

i…okay.

Team friendly deals don’t allow for good trade values in above the tax teams. You want low enough to still be good value but high enough to be worth similar value assets from other teams. Otherwise you need to move two for one like needing to move Prince with Nowell to get a value player back.

.. but those teams will often be able to make it a 2-for-2 trade, by tossing in a vet min guy, or simply releasing their 15th guy. And of course, you can always incentivize a third team who has cap space. Plus tax teams are always going to prefer cheaper contracts to reduce their lux bill.

I think cheaper deals have more trade value. Nowell on an extension starting at $4 mil has more value than Nowell on a $7 mil extension.

[winforlose]

…you…think…having functional players on team-friendly deals is on a scale between bad and terrible.

i…okay.

Team friendly deals don’t allow for good trade values in above the tax teams. You want low enough to still be good value but high enough to be worth similar value assets from other teams. Otherwise you need to move two for one like needing to move Prince with Nowell to get a value player back.

.. but those teams will often be able to make it a 2-for-2 trade, by tossing in a vet min guy, or simply releasing their 15th guy. And of course, you can always incentivize a third team who has cap space. Plus tax teams are always going to prefer cheaper contracts to reduce their lux bill.

I think cheaper deals have more trade value. Nowell on an extension starting at $4 mil has more value than Nowell on a $7 mil extension.

There is merit in that. But with limited draft capital (we cannot move any firsts and I think we have 2 seconds in the next 7 years and neither is ours,) it is hard to incentivize third teams. You are correct that additional players can be thrown in but that doesn’t always work the way you want and can make things messy. Nowell making 7 might make some teams less likely to want him, but depending on his play others will be happy to pay. Also, guys on low deals they out preform are less likely to be satisfied than on guys who are on more neutral deals and out perform them. I see it both ways, and I admit my suggested strategy is a tough needle to thread, but I do think it adds value overall.

[Zonarosa]

and I admit my suggested strategy is a tough needle to thread, but I do think it adds value overall.

it doesn't.

[winforlose]

and I admit my suggested strategy is a tough needle to thread, but I do think it adds value overall.

it doesn't.

Surprise, the guy was who never once agreed with me or talked about anything I said at face value disagrees again. Sensing a pattern here

[KGdaBom]

…you…think…having functional players on team-friendly deals is on a scale between bad and terrible.

i…okay.

It's a very strange kind of logic, but it actually makes total sense.

toronto won a title with siakam and anunoby still on their small deals. milwaukee had portis on the cheap. the dubs had porter, poole and payton. they all had a big hand in their clubs winning titles, and all were on team friendly deals.

point being - if you’re in the realm of contention, it’s those cheap role players that will put you over the top. if you’re getting positive production on a cheap deal with no negative effects to team chemistry, it’s not likely you’re going to rock the boat by making a deal in that scenario anyways. so i just don’t see any possible way it could be viewed as “bad to terrible”.

Bad to terrible was a bad to terrible choice of words and it's great to have players on cheap deals. However, Once that is established you either A lose the player for nothing down the road or B have no maneuverability due to the contract being too small. I totally get WFL's point.