RealGM

Since this topic seems to take over every single thread (and has now for months) why don't we keep it all in one place?

I don't know about you guys, but I think the debate is spent, but if people insist on beating this dead horse, can we at least keep it centralized to one thread, so we don't have to derail every single thread this topic?

I think people know each other's take by now.. but in case not here you go...

the contract is not a killer and in the end, we may have a piece for a trade down the road....

With the new TV money coming in, Thad's deal will be like a 7-9m per if you compare the % of the cap being used on his contract.

Thad is a solid all around basketball player. Obviously we should look to upgrade if the chance appears, but Thad's contract isn't a bad one at all considering what is being thrown around in the league now.

Plus he seems to genuinely like Brooklyn and seems to be developing a bond with Brook. I am happy with Thad.

I still think the entire debate is ovethinking. We stay afloat with a competent and productive PF and can move him via trade if a much better option is interested in joining.

thanks for making this. It should making sifting through the other threads much easier now.

Paradise wrote:I still think the entire debate is ovethinking. We stay afloat with a competent and productive PF and can move him via trade if a much better option is interested in joining.

^this. Close thread, nothing good will come from it.

this makes no sense, i still havent seen anyone comment on who the thad young alternatives were

Most know my thoughts on the topic but I'll lay em out one more time

1. Using this logic, should we have not signed Brook, Larkin or Ellington (the last two make more than the minimum and thus cut $3m into 2016 cap if they do not opt out)?
We signed 3 players that potentially chew up $26m or so in cap space.
Should we have let them all walk so that we have a better chance at these star players?

We also have Karasev and Bogdanovic that potentially but into 2016 cap space as well.
Should we dump those guys as well?
They are closer to $6m in 2016 cap space and make prevent us signing better players.

We could field the following team this season:

Jack / Boatright
JJ / Brown
RHJ / Q.Miller
Robinson / C.McC / Alexander
Reed / Bargnani

And next year have only RHJ and C.McC on the books and potentially Bargnani and Reed for the minimum.

Just not sure where this don't spend any money thing ends is the point here.


2. Where is the precedent for players wanting to come together and basing their decisions on others?
As far as I know, it's only happened once in Miami, where a already good team, already had a superstar on place and a mastermind behind it Riley. They also were able to resign role players on the cheap that they had already like Haslem, Miller, Jones IIRC. Either way these guys came together, with not much depth, and were arguably a disappointment compared to expectations and things ended unceremoniously with LBJ leaving. Perhaps these guys showed, stars teaming up doesn't work, rather stars joining a team does?

Otherwise it seems most players are individuals that are going to do what's best for them, and not wait for others to make decisions before they do. Again, I can think of no other examples of star players saying hey, let's team up here, and it happening.

If anything Free Agency this year showed players prefer places with something in place as opposed to blank slates (LAL, NYK). We may not be a good team next year, but we have a chance to be a competitive PO fighting team. If we go the route of clearing every single contract, we risk being a 20 win team with nothing to fight for and ultimately nothing to show for it.



3. Who are these FAs that would come here?
Horford?
Why would he leave a 60 win contender in Atlanta? Who has been linked to wanting to play with him?

Dwight?
A 30+ year old on the decline? Who's been clamoring to play with him lately or who would he bring? Seems if he really wanted to be here, he would have been a few years back.

Conley?
The PG on the contending team in Memphis, where Gasol just signed long-term supposedly because he thinks Conley is staying? Either way, who has he been linked to joining forces with?

Noah?
The shell of his former self on a better team than us?

Hibbert?
The guys who was salary dumped for cap relief and a 2nd?

Batum?
I'm down, but we can get him anyway and I again don't know of any players linked to him.

R.Anderson?
The oft injured guy with declining numbers who is not a good rebounder despite his rep and not a good defender?

Al Jefferson?
Umm, no.

Chandler Parsons?
He's Dallas's recruiter and isn't going anywhere. He also may have had microfracture.

Demarr Derozen?
The guy expecting $25m who can't shoot 3s?

Rondo?
The PG who has been dumped by two straight teams? Who wants to play with him again?


The restricted FAs who's team will certainly match them, like every single team did this year?
Beal, MKG, Drummond, etc.
I'd cross them off any list right away.

IMO, it's pie in the sky thinking, the same swing for the fences mentality that got us into this predicament.


4. Why is it assumed we can't clear more cap space if we need it?
Unless the worry is a serious injury to Lopez or Thad, I don't get it.

Thad is making a smaller percentage of the cap than he did last contract. (I even saw a recent post by Prok where he said he was a good contract) He is now in his prime as well. Philly was able to get a 1st rounder for him last summer when he was arguably a lesser player and on an expiring contract (PO) that was a higher percentage of the cap. In fact, he looks like perfect sign and trade filler, as he would be about half the max.

Next year player's of his caliber could be making $15m+.

There will also be much more cap space than there will be player's worth spending it on. Almost every team will have significant cap space and there will be more cap space than ever. The cap is jumping severely the next few years and teams will need to hit the salary floor and want to hit the cap. There are only so many FAs to go around (and most will stay with their teams) but there will be the most cap space on record. Would teams rather pay new cap prices for these FAs (25% more than what it is now), or would they rather pay players old cap prices?

I'm guessing we can get cap space and an asset for Thad, if he's not sign and trade fodder...

Keep in mind this is IF there is a better player/value/fit available and we need more than the $40m or so in cap we will already have.

"Oh but King wouldn't trade Thad"
Sure he would.
He also said he wasn't stretching D.Will.
He also said we weren't moving up in the draft.
His contract is also up at the end of the season and might not have a say

It's a business. Thad knows that, Billy knows that.


5. What if we don't find a FA/fit/value better than Thad that we need extra cap space for?
Most FAs are going to remain with their teams. Others are going to try to join teams that are or close to contending.
If we play the market card, NYK is the same market, has a star, a top draft pick and role players.
LAL is in a great market and has Russell, Randle, Clarkson to add to, plus has a history of winning.

If we strike out in FA, we wait until 2017?
Ok, and if we strike out then?
Keep waiting?

Seems a major risk.. to put out a what would probably be a truly terrible team if the top FAs continue to spurn us. Attendance could dwindle and Prok may sell. There goes one of our major appeals...an owner willing to spend whatever. Ownership could be in flux and we become less attractive.


6. Thad doesn't move the needle
Do I think we are a good team with Thad?
No, but I think we are a significantly better team with him than without him.
Without him we are starting....T.Rob? Bargnani, Cliff Alexander? The great crop of FA PFs that signed for the MLE? (please don't say David West would have)
With him, I think we can at least stay in the hunt for the PO until the bitter end that may have some intrigue to players.
Without him, I think we are a true bottom feeder in the East that no one even looks at.

Thus, I think we get on court value from him.. and I think we could get value from him in the future if we find an opportunity to or need to. In other words, I think we wasted an asset if we simply let him walk for nothing. And this comes down to one simple belief.. I don't see how he cost us the chance at 2016 Free Agent money should we need it. (my other belief being we probably won't need it)


All in all, there is some kind of game theory going on here.
You have to take into account

a. Could we have found a better fit/value/player in 2016 that we need extra cap space for?
If no, could we have found them in 2017, etc?
If yes...
Do you think Thad is movable in a trade or sign and trade?
If yes, there is no big deal
If no, then I understand the concern (though I do not agree)

Or do you think there will be star players looking to team up in 2016?
If yes..who are they, what makes you believe that, what makes them chose Brooklyn?
And if yes, does Thad prevent that?
If no, the point is moot.

Ideally, you try assigning odds to those questions and permutations.

IMO the scenario being lobbied for is:

Yes, there will be star FAs looking to team up
Yes, they will want to come to Brooklyn for some reason
Yes, Thad will be un-tradable either in sign and trade or salary dump

Now.. what do we think the odds of that are?
IMO low.

The scenario on the other side.
Thad is a valuable player on a valuable contract. IF there are star players that want to align in Brooklyn, he does not hinder that as he could be moved, but IMO there will not be multiple star players looking to align in BRK.
That seems more likely... and thus in the meanwhile we have a a player with on court value and trade value.


Finally, I started this thread, but don't plan on visiting it much.
It was mainly to get this played-out topic out of every single thread that's existed this off-season.
Almost everyone knows everyone's stance, but now it was getting personal and ugly.

Plus..news alert..we DID sign Thad.
What's done is done.

IMO there are more pressing topics out there such as
-who makes the team?
-what do we do about PG?
-do we move Joe for assets if possible?
etc.

Also, we know how much we tend to overpay in free agency.

My worst fear would be stuck with

Rondo - we need a PG, and I don't see Conley leaving Gasol and a contender in Memphis and the next best options are Jennings and Vasquez. I could see us giving hiM $20m
Derozen - the SG who can't shoot wanting $25m
R.Anderson - the oft injured PF who really isn't a good rebounder despite his rep and isn't much of a defender. Still seems like a $20m guy based upon rep and new CBA

Rondo / (Larkin)
Derozen / (Ellington)
RHJ / Bogs
Anderson / C.McC
Lopez / (Bargs)

yikes.
SadlyI think we would blow our wad all at once as our FO feels a need to be as good as possible to stay relevant in NY.

Much rather go for

Cheap FA* / (Larkin)
Batum / (Ellington)
RHJ / Bogs
Young / C.McC
Lopez / (Bargs)

* Going for RW, Curry, Teague, Holiday in 2017.

There is also a better PF crop then (Thad will have 2 years left, 1 of which a PO.. again seems perfect for S+T) such as Griffin, Ibaka, A.Johnson

Great post above, TJ.

thad made brook lopez , he made the the team better, he fit in well here, he was paid a decent market price, demarre carroll makes more than him, he wanted to be here, he helped us make the playoffs, he can play multiple positions, he plays with a passion,

i dont see any positives in letting him go

jbeachboy wrote:this makes no sense, i still havent seen anyone comment on who the thad young alternatives were

It's like all of the dumb Knick fans who booed Porzingas. Ok. Who were the Knicks suppose to draft instead?

Dont like Thad. Ok. Who would you like at PF instead?

Dont like Jack. Ok. Who would you like at PG instead?

People live in this make believe world that just because we could have cap space next season that we will be in the running for multiple max players. NEWS FLASH: Durant is only leaving OKC for Washington. We probably arent in his top 3 options.

Trying to sell us Mirza or T-Rob as the starter without being absolutely terrible is not an answer. Thad might not be a top 10 PF but he is light years ahead of these 2.

I'm down with signing Batum with some of our space and pairing him with RHJ. His numbers were down this year though, we'll have to monitor that.

I was initially on the fence about signing Thad. His defense is awful and doesn't rebound as much as need him to, but he is a talented player that made us better after he was acquired. With the way things transpired with Deron getting bought out, I'm glad that Thad wwas re-signed. His contract isn't terrible and is definitely movable later on if we need to trade him.

jeff1624 wrote:I was initially on the fence about signing Thad. His defense is awful and doesn't rebound as much as need him to, but he is a talented player that made us better after he was acquired. With the way things transpired with Deron getting bought out, I'm glad that Thad wwas re-signed. His contract isn't terrible and is definitely movable later on if we need to trade him.

Kinda where I stand. I said all along that it was too early to judge the Thad signing the moment he signed the contract. We had a mandate to get under the tax. So we needed to see what other move happened.
Seemed to be either:
1. We trade Joe for AV/Haywood
2. We stretch Deron

If we ended up taking on AV's contract to keep Thad it makes the signing look much worse. At the end of the day the Deron buyout makes it look better. Didn't think at the time both sides wanted to move on; thought that Deron wanted his money, wouldn't accept less in a buyout. And that we'd have $3 million more on the books per year, waiving him/stretching him like Josh Smith.

I voted maybe.

And that is largely because I think we have too small a sample size to make a conclusion that Thad deserves a 4 year/$50 million contract. Would most of us have thought the Thad we saw on the Wolves deserved 4 years/$50 million. Even his last year with the 6ers, yes the Wolves gave up a 1st for him after that year, but that was pretty universally bashed and story was Hinkie swindling another GM.

We saw the 2 best consecutive 3 point shooting months of Thad's career. Don't think we can expect to see him at or above 40%. He helped space the court during that period with his hot shooting. Brook also played well during that period, but could that be attributed to other factors as well? Shaking rust off, Hollins working with him to make quicker decisions with the ball, a consistent starting role where he showed good chemistry with Deron?

Thad is a very crafty player, finishes well around the rim, good cutting, moving, knowing where the ball will be. He has his strengths, but as you note he's a poor rebounder and poor defender - ranked low in rim protection and pick and roll defense. On paper he's not a great fit with Brook, but in actuality they worked pretty well together; but again back to it being a small sample size.
Some of his flaws were exposed in the playoffs where he was pretty awful. His hot shooting disappeared - he didn't make a single 3 in the playoffs and adversely affected spacing, his defense on Millsap was poor, and he was out of control at many times. His performance and numbers in the playoffs were not reflective of a 4 year/$50 million player. One can argue that is a small sample - which is, but are we going to limit ourselves to just the period of the ASB - end of regular season?

Claud wrote:With the new TV money coming in, Thad's deal will be like a 7-9m per if you compare the % of the cap being used on his contract.

Thad is a solid all around basketball player. Obviously we should look to upgrade if the chance appears, but Thad's contract isn't a bad one at all considering what is being thrown around in the league now.

Plus he seems to genuinely like Brooklyn and seems to be developing a bond with Brook. I am happy with Thad.

The value of the contract is a bit irrelevant for our specific situation. was it a good contract value wise for the player? absolutely. however what really matters is how this contract effects our ability to sign max free agents next summer. we can no longer offer 2 max contracts with thad signed. which means we can sell 2 top free agents on the idea of teaming up and playing together.

Thad young is not a very good player. and pretty easily replaceable. if we strike out in free agency we can just sign a thad level player anyhow. or someone better like ryan anderson, who already has chemistry with brook and would help our 3 point shooting and spacing problems big time.

Paradise wrote:I still think the entire debate is ovethinking. We stay afloat with a competent and productive PF and can move him via trade if a much better option is interested in joining.

what if we have the chance to sign 2 big targets, but cant trade thad because he got injured?

sure, he probably doesnt get injured, but its a possibility and our luck is horrible

jbeachboy wrote:this makes no sense, i still havent seen anyone comment on who the thad young alternatives were

this year or next year?

this year i dont see us needing one, as we arent a playoff team with or without thad. im fine starting trob and giving mcullough some time should he be healthy.

next year there are plenty. Ryan Anderson, Nene...

it really isnt hard to replace 13/5 with poor defense.

Trader_Joe wrote:Most know my thoughts on the topic but I'll lay em out one more time

1. Using this logic, should we have not signed Brook, Larkin or Ellington (the last two make more than the minimum and thus cut $3m into 2016 cap if they do not opt out)?
We signed 3 players that potentially chew up $26m or so in cap space.
Should we have let them all walk so that we have a better chance at these star players?

-no, that logic is NOT the same. Larkin and ellington make near the minimum, they dont effect our ability to sign 2 max free agents.

-Lopez is fine, he prevents you from signing a 3rd max free agent, but lopez is at least a borderline all-star who could be the 3rd best player on a contending team.

-thad is not an allstar and he DOES prevent you from signing a second max player next year. he is nothing like larkin/ellington since he doesnt make the minimum and he is nothing like brook as he is not an all-star caliubur player.

2. Where is the precedent for players wanting to come together and basing their decisions on others?
As far as I know, it's only happened once in Miami, where a already good team, already had a superstar on place and a mastermind behind it Riley. They also were able to resign role players on the cheap that they had already like Haslem, Miller, Jones IIRC. Either way these guys came together, with not much depth, and were arguably a disappointment compared to expectations and things ended unceremoniously with LBJ leaving. Perhaps these guys showed, stars teaming up doesn't work, rather stars joining a team does?

it happened with the Celtics with KG and allen. it happened with the cavs with love and LBJ. it happened with the heat with Bosh/LBJ.

also, you cant really talk about "precendent" with a CBA that isnt very old. how often have the top 2 players in the NBA been free agents at the same time like LBJ/Durant would have. what is the precendent for that? it hasnt happened often but the opportunity for it to happen hasnt been there often either.

I also find this irrelevant, since even if stars DONT team up to come here our worst case is we just sign a thad level player anyhow.

3. Who are these FAs that would come here?
Horford?
Why would he leave a 60 win contender in Atlanta? Who has been linked to wanting to play with him?

Dwight?
A 30+ year old on the decline? Who's been clamoring to play with him lately or who would he bring? Seems if he really wanted to be here, he would have been a few years back.

Conley?
The PG on the contending team in Memphis, where Gasol just signed long-term supposedly because he thinks Conley is staying? Either way, who has he been linked to joining forces with?

Noah?
The shell of his former self on a better team than us?

Hibbert?
The guys who was salary dumped for cap relief and a 2nd?

Batum?
I'm down, but we can get him anyway and I again don't know of any players linked to him.

R.Anderson?
The oft injured guy with declining numbers who is not a good rebounder despite his rep and not a good defender?

Al Jefferson?
Umm, no.

Chandler Parsons?
He's Dallas's recruiter and isn't going anywhere. He also may have had microfracture.

Demarr Derozen?
The guy expecting $25m who can't shoot 3s?

Rondo?
The PG who has been dumped by two straight teams? Who wants to play with him again?


The restricted FAs who's team will certainly match them, like every single team did this year?
Beal, MKG, Drummond, etc.
I'd cross them off any list right away.

IMO, it's pie in the sky thinking, the same swing for the fences mentality that got us into this predicament.

which of those options is not at least as good if not much better then thad? it would be near impossible not to at least find someone as good as thad. the upside is a star. im not sure why that isnt worth the risk

4. Why is it assumed we can't clear more cap space if we need it?
Unless the worry is a serious injury to Lopez or Thad, I don't get it.

Thad is making a smaller percentage of the cap than he did last contract. (I even saw a recent post by Prok where he said he was a good contract) He is now in his prime as well. Philly was able to get a 1st rounder for him last summer when he was arguably a lesser player and on an expiring contract (PO) that was a higher percentage of the cap. In fact, he looks like perfect sign and trade filler, as he would be about half the max.

Next year player's of his caliber could be making $15m+.

if thad gets injured who knows if we can trade him. he probably wont get injured, but why risk it? for what? to win 35 games instead of 30? With deron gone i think keeping thad is even less justified, as much as we all hate deron, our playoff hopes dont seem very likely.

There will also be much more cap space than there will be player's worth spending it on. Almost every team will have significant cap space and there will be more cap space than ever. The cap is jumping severely the next few years and teams will need to hit the salary floor and want to hit the cap. There are only so many FAs to go around (and most will stay with their teams) but there will be the most cap space on record. Would teams rather pay new cap prices for these FAs (25% more than what it is now), or would they rather pay players old cap prices?

hitting the salary floor is about the easiest thing to do in the NBA. there are always guys happy to get overpaid for 1 year. hell alot of times you can even benefit, trading cap space for an expiring contract and getting an asset for it.

5. What if we don't find a FA/fit/value better than Thad that we need extra cap space for?[/i]
Most FAs are going to remain with their teams. Others are going to try to join teams that are or close to contending.
If we play the market card, NYK is the same market, has a star, a top draft pick and role players.
LAL is in a great market and has Russell, Randle, Clarkson to add to, plus has a history of winning.

If we strike out in FA, we wait until 2017?

yes, if we strike out in free agency, we try our luck again the next year

Ok, and if we strike out then?
Keep waiting?

Yup

Seems a major risk.. to put out a what would probably be a truly terrible team if the top FAs continue to spurn us. Attendance could dwindle and Prok may sell. There goes one of our major appeals...an owner willing to spend whatever. Ownership could be in flux and we become less attractive.

how is this any different then if thad is on the team? thad isnt some impact player who is the difference between sucking and being a good team. i think most like thad, but he isnt that good of a player to change your franchise by 10-15 wins. and in the interim of trying to land a free agent, you can sign a guy similar to thad. would we really be any worse with nene or ryan anderson?

striking out on free agency without thad doesnt prevent us for trying to develop our young guys or making trades. all the things we would do with thad we could do without thad

6. Thad doesn't move the needle
Do I think we are a good team with Thad?
No, but I think we are a significantly better team with him than without him.

define significantly better? 5 games? 10? 15? 20? that is kind of vague.

Without him we are starting....T.Rob? Bargnani, Cliff Alexander? The great crop of FA PFs that signed for the MLE? (please don't say David West would have)
With him, I think we can at least stay in the hunt for the PO until the bitter end that may have some intrigue to players.
Without him, I think we are a true bottom feeder in the East that no one even looks at.

i dont think we are more then 5 games worse with trob starting. i think we would actually be better if we didint signed thad and went with jordan hill or someone like that for all/part of the MLE.

I just dont agree that thad is the difference between playoffs (38-40 wins) and bottom feeders (20-25 wins). he isnt worth 15-20 wins. few guys are. thad isnt some top 10 player.

All in all, there is some kind of game theory going on here.
You have to take into account

a. Could we have found a better fit/value/player in 2016 that we need extra cap space for?

hard not to. thad isnt a great player

If no, could we have found them in 2017, etc?

again, hard not to

If yes...
Do you think Thad is movable in a trade or sign and trade?

not if he got hurt, and to me that isnt worth the risk

If no, then I understand the concern (though I do not agree)

fair enough

Or do you think there will be star players looking to team up in 2016?

I 100% expect 2 of the top 3-5 free agents to team up, not sure its here but i think thats a good bet

If yes..who are they, what makes you believe that, what makes them chose Brooklyn?

because that gives them the best chance to win. lebron + durant is better then anything on any team out there. not sure if they would choose brooklyn, but few teams would be able to max both (they both would get the 10 year max at 29.3M each, and while lots of teams will have cap space, i dont count many that would have that much. and of the ones who will, few have anyone as good as brook lopez... i.e. Denver)

And if yes, does Thad prevent that?
If no, the point is moot.

Yes, thad doesnt prevent that, and that is 100% the reason why i dont want to sign thad. we cant offer 2 full max deals with thad on the team, even with his contract being a good one

Ideally, you try assigning odds to those questions and permutations.

IMO the scenario being lobbied for is:

Yes, there will be star FAs looking to team up
Yes, they will want to come to Brooklyn for some reason
Yes, Thad will be un-tradable either in sign and trade or salary dump

Now.. what do we think the odds of that are?
IMO low.

the odds of stars teaming up to play in brooklyn is 0 if we dont have the money to do it. so even if the odds of them coming without thad here is 1%, thats better then 0. thad being untradeable doesnt matter to me. i dont have to worry about trading him if i dont sign him, and i think it is unwise to sign a guy you may want to trade 1 year later. anything can happen, injuries, who knows.

IMO there are more pressing topics out there such as
-who makes the team?
-what do we do about PG?
-do we move Joe for assets if possible?
etc.

To me the most pressing issue between now and the trade deadline is how can we trade thad young. everything else to me is extremely minor in comparison