NoDopeOnSundays wrote:Chanel Bomber wrote:NoDopeOnSundays wrote:
The vast majority of the guys on that list are not overpaid, they are paid market value, you seem to be operating from a place where the cap was $85 million and these teams have no idea what these guys make relative to similar players. The reality of the NBA is that those guys are paid exactly what they're worth, the 2 and especially the 3 are the hardest positions in basketball to find, because guys that size with any amount of perimeter skills get paid. You do not determine market value, the market does, and it has spoken loud and clear. Saying RJ isn't worth $10 million is pretty ridiculous and isn't even really a good faith argument.
You can feel that way about Bullock, the reality is that the Mavericks would drive him and any non Luka player + picks to the airport tomorrow if they could get RJ, but that would be a stupid trade on our part despite you saying he's more valuable. You can say for the thousandth time you think RJ will improve, your arguments seem to say differently. Everything I read from you is about what he is right now, as in he shouldn't be paid right now because he's not super efficient right now, even though we all know teams pay in part based on potential as well. I want to see what you say about DeAndre Hunter too, because he's eligible for an extension and the Hawks are doing a lot of these moves with retaining him in mind, he is objectively a less talented & older player than RJ.
Let's keep it real with Kristaps, the knee injury derailed his career, there is no telling what he would have been if that had not happened. His issue isn't ability, it's availability mixed with him being robbed of what really made him unique, which was the mobility to play the 4 at that size, once he tore his ACL that was gone and he absolutely had to transition to playing C which hes' not good at. Also, the Mavs waited for year 4 with Brunson, how'd that turn out for them?
I didn't say the vast majority is all overpaid. I said the vast majority of these players is
either overpaid or better than RJ (the latter in some cases justifying the size of their contract). There's a difference.
I disagree that players are necessarily paid what they are worth. Market value doesn't necessarily equate to actual on-court value, if not there wouldn't be bad contracts in the NBA. The primary reason behind this "dissonance" is - I believe - the reality that the NBA is a zero-sum game, and the least desirable franchises, or the least competent ones, will overvalue players and overpay them, either out of desperation or out of improper talent evaluation. That's how DeAaron Fox got a max deal from the Kings.
There have been two separate conversations about RJ's present and his future. Regarding the present, some posters think he's a good player, or that he played well this year - and I disagree with that assessment, with overwhelming statistical evidence that would tend to back my position. Regarding the future, some posters think he's destined to become a star (a primary or a secondary) and that he should be paid accordingly - and while I believe he will improve, I also disagree about that assessment, as I think (after looking at historical comparisons of players with a comparable statistical output at age 21 or after 3 seasons) his absolute ceiling is 3rd option on a contender, similar to KCP, Antoine Walker, or Jrue Holiday (without the elite defense), if things do work out, which is not a given.
Hunter was a bit disappointing this season. I'd pay him in the same range as RJ, in a vacuum, though similar to RJ I would want to see more from him in year 4 before signing him to a big-money extension. The Hawks can afford the risk of overpaying him more than the Knicks do with RJ because they already have a franchise talent though - and the Knicks don't. If RJ is the player who holds the highest perceived value, then perhaps he could help land that franchise talent, or a foundational piece. Which is why I would consider trading him, whether for an established star or for draft picks. The Hawks should consider doing it too if there were offers of that nature for Hunter.
I think I'm fine with either one of these players getting $15 million a year, as it's not franchise-crippling even in the worst case scenario, and it's not an unreasonable gamble, but I would consider that an overpay. Perhaps more importantly, that's a use of an asset that shuts down other doors i.e. trade opportunities that could actually allow you to seriously climb up the talent ladder in the NBA.
I disagree about KP. One factor that people forget to mention with regards to his athleticism (in addition to his injuries) was the weight gain, which he needed in order to play the 5, the position he was destined to play in the NBA, because he didn't have the mobility to guard on the perimeter with the league shifting towards 4-out and 5-out offenses. The weight gain also reduced his athleticism significantly. I never thought KP had superstar talent with or without injuries anyway. He was inefficient scoring the ball for a big (as a featured player), he couldn't post up to take advantage of his size, and he never passed the ball (he has improved in that area but nobody will mistake him for a playmaker). You have to pay attention to those things.
No, the vast majority are neither overpaid or better than RJ, however you want to word it you're wrong.
The players are paid their market value, we are fans and do not dictate market value, we can argue all we want whether certain players are worth the contract or not, or what
we would pay them. At the end of the day the people who pay these players decide what their value is, and the reality of the NBA is that RJ is worth more than the $10 million you think he's worth. You're not dealing from a place of reality once you start throwing around those type of numbers, it's not based on recent history of what similar players have got. Saying $15 million per season is a substantial overpay is utterly ridiculous in a league where PJ Tucker at 38 just got $11 million per.
Any argument that paints RJ in a somewhat positive light is something you will disagree with
. In the present he was decent to good, he finished the season very strong, from Christmas on he was 23/6/4, which was 44 games, the efficiency has to get better but your position literally just hinges on him not being able to make 1 more layup per game, or improving as a freethrow shooter in the next few years. If he had made 1 more layup during that stretch he would have shot 46%, 1 more freethrow per game and that would be 86% from the line, bringing him to 26ppg on 46%, do you understand the hill you have made your stand on has such narrow margins? Do I think he's a 1, no, do I think he should get a max, no, but if he got something like Jaylen Brown but slightly more it's perfectly in line with what a player his age, position, size and current numbers gets. Do I think you should jettison every player that isn't a number 1? No, because there could be value in RJ as a 2 or 3 later on in his career.
Hunter is going to get a more than $15 million, that's Kevin Huerter money, players going on their 2nd contract get paid for potential as well, for whatever reason you don't seem to get that part. Marvin Bagley just got $12.5 million per, yet you think neither of these guys is worth more than $15 million ($10 million in RJ's case).
He didn't start gaining upper body weight until he got injured and started working out with that roided out trainer who made him focus on upper body. He came back top heavy and several steps slower, nobody has any clue what he could have been if it weren't for the ACL injury, and we're seeing some teams go with two bigs again. His body didn't hold up, even as a diminished player he's still averaging solid numbers, if he could play 80% of the games on the year he'd be worth his contract, but he can't. Regardless, KP isn't RJ, so it's honestly irrelevant, if RJ tears his ACL between now and the time he signs his contract I'll change my mind on him.
Players do receive their market value, but it is not always reflective of their actual on-court value. As I assess what contract a player should receive, I judge their value based moreso on the latter, which is not to say that they will not receive what their market value dictates.
I have no doubts that RJ will receive a contract that pays him north of $20 million a year. The market will drive his value into that territory. But based on his play, I value his current contribution on the court at $10 million. I certainly don't think he is a better player than PJ Tucker, or Royce O'Neale, or Kevin Huerter today. But because he is young and he presumably still has upside, I wouldn't find a bump of $5 million annually to be unreasonable ($15 million total), although I am not confident he would prove to be worth that contract.
RJ does have a few qualities, that I consistently acknowledge. There are just very few aspects of the game where he actually makes a positive contribution, and he's actively destructive in many other areas. He's a good rebounder, he's a good defender in isolation situations and he's good in wide-open C&S situations. These are traits you find in role players, or that you ask from role players. You can say he's improved as a post player (an inherently inefficient playtype that he's merely average at), fine. The problem is that he is not good at anything else, especially at anything that requires him to create. I don't think I have to break down those areas of the game, but I can.
What you say about RJ "only needing to make 1 more free throw and/or one more lay-up a game" could be said for any player in the league. And then every young player is good because of what they could do and not because of the way they have actually performed over a 3-year span. This is purely fictional, and not realistic. That's not the extent in which players improve anyway - a more realistic yet significant improvement would merely be 0.2 or 0.3 misses turning into makes per game.
RJ does not really align with the developmental curve of Jaylen Brown. Maybe if you only look at the raw boxscore numbers, but Brown has scored higher on impact, efficiency, and defense throughout his career, with the exception of his 3rd year, which admittedly aligns with RJ's 3rd year in terms of impact (though not in efficiency). And Brown always had elite athleticism, which always gave him a higher upside. RJ's development is statistically more in line with Dion Waiters, Kentavious Caldwell-Pope, Dennis Schroder or Andrew Wiggins, if you want to be optimistic. I think that is his company.
I never said we should jettison RJ because he doesn't project as a #1 on a contender. My issue is that he doesn't project as a #2 either, and I think it's optimistic to think he could be a #3. I think he should be developed as a role player, and I think paying him $20 million a year would make it unnecessarily and increasingly hard to do, especially with the expectations in terms of role this figure would create.
Anyway, I understand the reality that teams hand out bad contracts by meeting their market value. The problem is, market value is not only driven by competent teams, but also by incompetent, and desperate teams, which somehow always find themselves attached to bad contracts. So while I understand that RJ will get a fat contract, based on how some of his peers got paid, I do not necessarily think that matching his market value is a good decision for the Knicks. And rather than taking the risk of massively overpaying him this summer, I would rather trade an asset that contains a significant amount of risk of turning into a liability for a player who is more likely to be worth his contract (in my estimation), or for draft capital.
