RealGM

Starting a thread for the larger philosophies about building a team and their potential implications on our roster.

Porting this conversation to this thread.

ezzzp wrote:The Magic won't be able to use any cap space in summer of 2020 (heading into 20-21 season). They have to conserve that space because Fultz and Isaac are restricted free agents summer of 2021. Otherwise they are going into ridiculous levels of Luxury Tax.

Those two contracts are each going to jump from rookie scale to at bare minimum starter scale (17% of salary cap = +$20m). That's if they are just average (Fournier level) starters...if they become more than that, then expect other teams offer sheets to be much higher.

Then the following summer Aaron Gordon hits free agency. He'll be eligible for a 30% max contract. Even if he isn't a max player, its going to take a big offer from the Magic to get him to stay in Orlando for a 3d contract through his prime years.

Then the next summer, Bamba hits free agency.

...this is what happens when teams accumulate and rely on too much youth, their rookie scale contracts all mature in compressed time span making it near impossible to keep them all.

Skin wrote:No, no, no... the scenario where you hit on players you drafted is the ideal scenario. This is exactly what you want.

What you don't want is to overpay for them. So long as you're paying the right value, then it's ok.

This is why the "we must retain the asset" argument fails. This is what happened to us with Harris and Fournier. We didn't want to lose them for nothing (like we are now facing with Vuc). Then when we do want to trade them, we can't get anything good.

The time to trade them is before the deadline prior to their summer of FA. Especially true for RFAs. That is the best time to get value for them. Teams trading for them gain the Restricted leverage so they'll likely offer more. Once you sign your own FA and you overpay, then that's when you get in trouble because nobody wants to trade for an overpaid player and give up something good.

But the bottom line is we need to be frugal with our cap space and only spend on players we value at the amount we value them. Don't over pay. Don't be afraid to lose them for nothing because cap space is never "nothing".

Can't make signings that are going to leave you in an disadvantageous position should you decide you need to trade them. Imagine the difficulty after giving Vuc a 5 year, $28-32M per year deal. Our team would be cap strapped an unable to improve in any way other than by getting super lucky with draft picks in the late teens (because you won't be bad enough to be picking any higher).

ezzzp wrote:No, no, no...nobody hits on all their drafts, nobody.

Being in a scenario having to decide which of multiple young players is worth what (in a cluster) is NOT what you want. Because of the age that players enter the NBA, its difficult to know what players you are overpaying or should keep. That's where your argument fails.

That is exactly why scenarios like trading Oladipo and maxing out Wiggins occur.

If the Magic had retained Harris instead of trading him for cap space, they wouldn't have ended up with either Jeff Green or Biyombo. They would have had a very good trade asset or good young player instead.

MagicMatic wrote:

Skin wrote:

pepe1991 wrote:
Rookie scale extensions are not cheap.
Especially early extensions who are designed for superstars in making.

2014 draft class for example:
Wiggins- max contract
Joel Embiid- Max contract
Parker , $20M a year deal ( 1+1 due injuries tho)
Gordon 4 years $84M
TJ Warren 4 years $54M
Harris 4 years $82M
Smart 4 years $52M
Exum 3 yeras $33M
Lavine 4 years $78M

Literally everybody with any value got their $11-20M deals. That's not cheap. And Embiid and Wiggins got their <$25 000 000 deals.

Not arguing that it's not expensive. Arguing that if you can build a team that way, then that's a great recipe for success... but it takes understanding your players and their potential and not falling in love with the smell of your own poo.

Of that list only Embiid maybe is worth his contract, barring his health. AG’s is only good because it scales down. None of those players are guys you can build around or deserving of “max”. That’s where teams make mistakes. Giving guys a boatload of money, that decline to lesser valued assets, become difficult to move until they are expiring deals. If those same players are past their prime it becomes even more difficult.

Interesting discussion. Timing of contracts towards a window of known contention is the key. Let's break this down further.

This isn't intended to be a road map for how to build a team, just a case study.

Warriors - they got lucky with a lot of things falling into place at the right time. Curry having injury issues which lead to him signing an incredibly below market value contract, coupled with the increase in the salary cap, allowed them to add Durant. But they'd managed to win one championship without him, and have a finals appearance, so let's focus on that.

Star Player
featured scorer, elite offense
Curry, secured through draft (#7 pick?)

Secondary Star
featured scorer, elite offense, solid defender
Klay, secured through draft (#7 pick?)

Star Role Player 1
Elite defense, above average offense
Iggy, signed via FA

Star Role Player 2
Elite defense and versatile offensive coordinator
Draymond, secured through draft (2nd round?)

Veteran Anchor
Bogut, secured via trade for Monta


2011-12
It all started with the shift in direction by trading Monta for Bogut. Curry was injured, they landed another high pick, and took Harrison Barnes, and in the 2nd round they take Draymond.

2012-13
Setting Curry and Klay loose, they made the 2nd round of the playoffs.

2013-14
After their competitive season, they had the space to sign Igoudala.

2014-15
They made big changes, firing Mark Jackson and bringing Steve Kerr in. Klay, Draymond and Barnes were all still on rookie scale contracts, but all starters. Bogut, Iggy, Curry and David Lee were the only players on salaries north of $10M. They win a championship.

2015-16
Klay and Dray get paid. They lose the finals.

2016-17
They have the freakish chance of expanded salary cap and cap space to sign Kevin Durant.

The rest is history.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Now, the take away from here for me is the age of the rookies they were drafting in the first place.

Curry - 21 year old junior
Klay - 21 year old junior
Draymond - 22 year old senior

Being older, these players were further along in their growth and development that they were able to offer more immediate impact whilst still on rookie scale contracts.

That's got me thinking about the other competitive teams that have had high impact players on RSC's.

Portland - McCollum was a 22 year old senior, and a 20ppg starter by the 3rd year of his RSC
Toronto - Siakam was a 22 year old sophomore, and presently a 17ppg scorer in 3rd year of his RSC
Milwaukee - Brogdon was a 24 year old senior, and presently a 15ppg scorer in 3rd year of his RSC
San Antonio - White was a 23 year old senior, presently the Spurs starting backcourt in 2nd year of his RSC. Forbes was a 23 year old senior, also presently Spurs starting backcourt in 3rd year of his RSC.
Denver - Morris was a 22 year old senior, presently the 6th man for the Nuggets in 2nd year of his RSC


So, what I'm gathering is the importance of these teams to draft players who are capable of providing earlier impact within their bargain RSC contracts. Sure, they've all got stars already, all procured via various means. But when planning for a window of highly competitive seasons, these are the players you need to bring in.


I'm gonna mull this over whilst trying to figure out how to best fit this approach into the timeline of Vuc's next contract, with the other RSCs we already have in place.

ezzzp wrote:

Skin wrote:Well, I wouldn't say nobody... Duncan, Ginobili, Parker.... Westbook, Harden, Durant... Curry, Klay, Draymond... off the top of my head... I'd say those qualify.

But I agree... it's uncommon... which actually is a point that helps my argument. If not all picks pan out, then that would alleviate burden on the cap and you wouldn't run into the problem you first brought up about not being able to afford to keep them all.

If anything that just proves my point, not yours but nice try.

Also, the Spurs example was in era when rookies entering NBA were older plus they weren't drafted in a cluster. Tim Duncan was 22 (1997 draft); T Parker was 19 drafted 4 years later in 2001, Manu was 25 years old as rookie and drafted in 02.

The OKC is perfect example of core that team couldn't keep together specifically for reason I stated.

GSW is the only one, BUT that was only because Curry had serious injury concerns and hadn't yet erupted so he was on cheap contract PLUS Green's contract matured just before the salary cap spiked in 2016.

What do you guys think of my thoughts in the post above, and using older rookies as a means for getting more immediate impact whilst still getting the benefit of a bargain rookie scale contract?

Maybe we need to return to the era of drafting older players once more?

Bensational wrote:Interesting discussion. Timing of contracts towards a window of known contention is the key. Let's break this down further.

This isn't intended to be a road map for how to build a team, just a case study.

Warriors - they got lucky with a lot of things falling into place at the right time. Curry having injury issues which lead to him signing an incredibly below market value contract, coupled with the increase in the salary cap, allowed them to add Durant. But they'd managed to win one championship without him, and have a finals appearance, so let's focus on that.

Star Player
featured scorer, elite offense
Curry, secured through draft (#7 pick?)

Secondary Star
featured scorer, elite offense, solid defender
Klay, secured through draft (#7 pick?)

Star Role Player 1
Elite defense, above average offense
Iggy, signed via FA

Star Role Player 2
Elite defense and versatile offensive coordinator
Draymond, secured through draft (2nd round?)

Veteran Anchor
Bogut, secured via trade for Monta


2011-12
It all started with the shift in direction by trading Monta for Bogut. Curry was injured, they landed another high pick, and took Harrison Barnes, and in the 2nd round they take Draymond.

2012-13
Setting Curry and Klay loose, they made the 2nd round of the playoffs.

2013-14
After their competitive season, they had the space to sign Igoudala.

2014-15
They made big changes, firing Mark Jackson and bringing Steve Kerr in. Klay, Draymond and Barnes were all still on rookie scale contracts, but all starters. Bogut, Iggy, Curry and David Lee were the only players on salaries north of $10M. They win a championship.

2015-16
Klay and Dray get paid. They lose the finals.

2016-17
They have the freakish chance of expanded salary cap and cap space to sign Kevin Durant.

The rest is history.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Now, the take away from here for me is the age of the rookies they were drafting in the first place.

Curry - 21 year old junior
Klay - 21 year old junior
Draymond - 22 year old senior

Being older, these players were further along in their growth and development that they were able to offer more immediate impact whilst still on rookie scale contracts.

That's got me thinking about the other competitive teams that have had high impact players on RSC's.

Portland - McCollum was a 22 year old senior, and a 20ppg starter by the 3rd year of his RSC
Toronto - Siakam was a 22 year old sophomore, and presently a 17ppg scorer in 3rd year of his RSC
Milwaukee - Brogdon was a 24 year old senior, and presently a 15ppg scorer in 3rd year of his RSC
San Antonio - White was a 23 year old senior, presently the Spurs starting backcourt in 2nd year of his RSC. Forbes was a 23 year old senior, also presently Spurs starting backcourt in 3rd year of his RSC.
Denver - Morris was a 22 year old senior, presently the 6th man for the Nuggets in 2nd year of his RSC


So, what I'm gathering is the importance of these teams to draft players who are capable of providing earlier impact within their bargain RSC contracts. Sure, they've all got stars already, all procured via various means. But when planning for a window of highly competitive seasons, these are the players you need to bring in.


I'm gonna mull this over whilst trying to figure out how to best fit this approach into the timeline of Vuc's next contract, with the other RSCs we already have in place.

I don't always agree with the principle of drafting older-more-ready players in the lottery. I would say it's more ok to do so outside the lottery or in Round 2. But there are exceptions. Oladipo I was very high on despite him being an elder statesman.

Iwundu (Sr), Frazier (Jr) is exactly the kind of targets I like to see us gamble on.

Normally youth is associated with higher potential and age is associated with higher floor.

I'm all on board with WeHam's immense appreciation in length/wingspan. That's new age modeling. When paired with raw offensive potential that is legitimately there... you gotta love that.

I just don't want to see our rebuild encounter what the previous rebuild did in overlapping talent. Duplication is not a total killer if there is versatility, but I can't enjoy a situation that goes 3 deep. That's where frustration sets in.

Bensational wrote:

ezzzp wrote:

Skin wrote:Well, I wouldn't say nobody... Duncan, Ginobili, Parker.... Westbook, Harden, Durant... Curry, Klay, Draymond... off the top of my head... I'd say those qualify.

But I agree... it's uncommon... which actually is a point that helps my argument. If not all picks pan out, then that would alleviate burden on the cap and you wouldn't run into the problem you first brought up about not being able to afford to keep them all.

If anything that just proves my point, not yours but nice try.

Also, the Spurs example was in era when rookies entering NBA were older plus they weren't drafted in a cluster. Tim Duncan was 22 (1997 draft); T Parker was 19 drafted 4 years later in 2001, Manu was 25 years old as rookie and drafted in 02.

The OKC is perfect example of core that team couldn't keep together specifically for reason I stated.

GSW is the only one, BUT that was only because Curry had serious injury concerns and hadn't yet erupted so he was on cheap contract PLUS Green's contract matured just before the salary cap spiked in 2016.

What do you guys think of my thoughts in the post above, and using older rookies as a means for getting more immediate impact whilst still getting the benefit of a bargain rookie scale contract?

Maybe we need to return to the era of drafting older players once more?

I’m actually a fan of older rookies compared to 1 year out of college guys unless they appear to be “otherworldly” or “generational” talent. Most notable guys in this draft are Brandon Clarke, Matisse Thybulle, and Rui Hachimura as juniors that could have a bigger impact if put in good situations. If WeHam could draft a BPA guard #16 and somehow acquire a laterish pick for one of those guys it would be great.

Bensational wrote:

ezzzp wrote:

Skin wrote:Well, I wouldn't say nobody... Duncan, Ginobili, Parker.... Westbook, Harden, Durant... Curry, Klay, Draymond... off the top of my head... I'd say those qualify.

But I agree... it's uncommon... which actually is a point that helps my argument. If not all picks pan out, then that would alleviate burden on the cap and you wouldn't run into the problem you first brought up about not being able to afford to keep them all.

If anything that just proves my point, not yours but nice try.

Also, the Spurs example was in era when rookies entering NBA were older plus they weren't drafted in a cluster. Tim Duncan was 22 (1997 draft); T Parker was 19 drafted 4 years later in 2001, Manu was 25 years old as rookie and drafted in 02.

The OKC is perfect example of core that team couldn't keep together specifically for reason I stated.

GSW is the only one, BUT that was only because Curry had serious injury concerns and hadn't yet erupted so he was on cheap contract PLUS Green's contract matured just before the salary cap spiked in 2016.

What do you guys think of my thoughts in the post above, and using older rookies as a means for getting more immediate impact whilst still getting the benefit of a bargain rookie scale contract?

Maybe we need to return to the era of drafting older players once more?

i dont think older rookies necessarily mean cheaper or more sustainable. The older rookies that come in, are the less talented players in the ncaa. If a freshman/sophomore decide to join the draft, its likely because they have more talent and are projected to be picked high because of it. What happens with older rookies is there are more information about them, their game, which really hurts their stocks.

The Warriors are an anomaly because of what happened with Steph, but its going to be tough for them to bring all back with the amount of max contracts they’ll have to start paying these guys soon.

Hitting on early picks is only short term success, imo. When they get into their 2nd or 3rd contract its going to be unsustainable.

Early picks = more financial investments.

See OKC (Durant, Westbrook, Ibaka, Harden). If you want from the past, chicago Bulls (chandler, deng, eddy curry). These high pick players get their 2nd contract because they can play and have the “potential” tag. Or go way back to the Clippers with Odom, Miles etc, unsustainable either because the owner refused to OPEN THE WALLET because of his “beliefs”.

Usually early picks gets a higher amount of contract based on the term “potential”. But what if they dont improve in their 2nd contract?

The thing with the spurs though. Man, tbh, i really think a lot of it comes down to having a good coach that maximizes each players strengths and mask their weakness. (See Gary Neal and Jonathan Simmons for example). But another is having european star players. Other than dirk and probably pau, who are lotto picks, there really hasnt been a lot of europeans that re-signed for max deals. Not only that, they are also more loyal.

Building a team is a mix and match. Its easy to build a team with multiple high draft picks, but making the success sustainable is more difficult.

I like what jerry West usually does, and something Hinkie tried to replicate. Jerry West usually traded players early if he doesnt see any potential in those guys. Prime example for Jerry is Drew gooden, and MCW for hinkie.

Being around a player for 7 days a week, gives you first hand information about their development progress, character, etc. if they dont see something, they flip the players right away, while their value around the league is still high. This is possibly something Hennigan missed out on with Eflrid.

Not saying I like Alex Martins, but Like what Alex Martin said when he fired Henni, if you miss out on high draft picks, “you need to make your own luck”. And i think this holds true where ever industry you are in. Create more chances, take more risks, makes more success.

fendilim wrote:

Bensational wrote:

ezzzp wrote:
If anything that just proves my point, not yours but nice try.

Also, the Spurs example was in era when rookies entering NBA were older plus they weren't drafted in a cluster. Tim Duncan was 22 (1997 draft); T Parker was 19 drafted 4 years later in 2001, Manu was 25 years old as rookie and drafted in 02.

The OKC is perfect example of core that team couldn't keep together specifically for reason I stated.

GSW is the only one, BUT that was only because Curry had serious injury concerns and hadn't yet erupted so he was on cheap contract PLUS Green's contract matured just before the salary cap spiked in 2016.

What do you guys think of my thoughts in the post above, and using older rookies as a means for getting more immediate impact whilst still getting the benefit of a bargain rookie scale contract?

Maybe we need to return to the era of drafting older players once more?

i dont think older rookies necessarily mean cheaper or more sustainable. The older rookies that come in, are the less talented players in the ncaa. If a freshman/sophomore decide to join the draft, its likely because they have more talent and are projected to be picked high because of it. What happens with older rookies is there are more information about them, their game, which really hurts their stocks.

The Warriors are an anomaly because of what happened with Steph, but its going to be tough for them to bring all back with the amount of max contracts they’ll have to start paying these guys soon.

Hitting on early picks is only short term success, imo. When they get into their 2nd or 3rd contract its going to be unsustainable.

Early picks = more financial investments.

See OKC (Durant, Westbrook, Ibaka, Harden). If you want from the past, chicago Bulls (chandler, deng, eddy curry). These high pick players get their 2nd contract because they can play and have the “potential” tag. Or go way back to the Clippers with Odom, Miles etc, unsustainable either because the owner refused to OPEN THE WALLET because of his “beliefs”.

Usually early picks gets a higher amount of contract based on the term “potential”. But what if they dont improve in their 2nd contract?

The thing with the spurs though. Man, tbh, i really think a lot of it comes down to having a good coach that maximizes each players strengths and mask their weakness. (See Gary Neal and Jonathan Simmons for example). But another is having european star players. Other than dirk and probably pau, who are lotto picks, there really hasnt been a lot of europeans that re-signed for max deals. Not only that, they are also more loyal.

Building a team is a mix and match. Its easy to build a team with multiple high draft picks, but making the success sustainable is more difficult.

I like what jerry West usually does, and something Hinkie tried to replicate. Jerry West usually traded players early if he doesnt see any potential in those guys. Prime example for Jerry is Drew gooden, and MCW for hinkie.

Being around a player for 7 days a week, gives you first hand information about their development progress, character, etc. if they dont see something, they flip the players right away, while their value around the league is still high. This is possibly something Hennigan missed out on with Eflrid.

Not saying I like Alex Martins, but Like what Alex Martin said when he fired Henni, if you miss out on high draft picks, “you need to make your own luck”. And i think this holds true where ever industry you are in. Create more chances, take more risks, makes more success.

Couldn’t agree more with the bolded. Orlando has had a knack of holding onto assets that became devalued before the league knew their worth per value return. The difference in the draft is that two things become super apparent; where you pick matters and who you pick matters just as much if not more. Moreover, situation matters immensely, in my opinion, than what a lot of mock drafts or big boards will predict. Some teams, like the Spurs, know how to put players in the best situations regardless.

Bensational wrote:
What do you guys think of my thoughts in the post above, and using older rookies as a means for getting more immediate impact whilst still getting the benefit of a bargain rookie scale contract?

Maybe we need to return to the era of drafting older players once more?

Older rookies is a good suggestion, in particular for plugging in some ready day-one offense.

WeltHam seem to be on that. They've had success with Brogdon (24), P Connaughton (23), Siakim (22), Van Vleet (22), Powell (22), and D Wright (23)

Do you agree that every Championship team had a big FA signing?

What about Orlando?

fendilim wrote:i dont think older rookies necessarily mean cheaper or more sustainable. The older rookies that come in, are the less talented players in the ncaa. If a freshman/sophomore decide to join the draft, its likely because they have more talent and are projected to be picked high because of it. What happens with older rookies is there are more information about them, their game, which really hurts their stocks.

The Warriors are an anomaly because of what happened with Steph, but its going to be tough for them to bring all back with the amount of max contracts they’ll have to start paying these guys soon.

Hitting on early picks is only short term success, imo. When they get into their 2nd or 3rd contract its going to be unsustainable.

Early picks = more financial investments.

See OKC (Durant, Westbrook, Ibaka, Harden). If you want from the past, chicago Bulls (chandler, deng, eddy curry). These high pick players get their 2nd contract because they can play and have the “potential” tag. Or go way back to the Clippers with Odom, Miles etc, unsustainable either because the owner refused to OPEN THE WALLET because of his “beliefs”.

Usually early picks gets a higher amount of contract based on the term “potential”. But what if they dont improve in their 2nd contract?

The thing with the spurs though. Man, tbh, i really think a lot of it comes down to having a good coach that maximizes each players strengths and mask their weakness. (See Gary Neal and Jonathan Simmons for example). But another is having european star players. Other than dirk and probably pau, who are lotto picks, there really hasnt been a lot of europeans that re-signed for max deals. Not only that, they are also more loyal.

Building a team is a mix and match. Its easy to build a team with multiple high draft picks, but making the success sustainable is more difficult.

I like what jerry West usually does, and something Hinkie tried to replicate. Jerry West usually traded players early if he doesnt see any potential in those guys. Prime example for Jerry is Drew gooden, and MCW for hinkie.

Being around a player for 7 days a week, gives you first hand information about their development progress, character, etc. if they dont see something, they flip the players right away, while their value around the league is still high. This is possibly something Hennigan missed out on with Eflrid.

Not saying I like Alex Martins, but Like what Alex Martin said when he fired Henni, if you miss out on high draft picks, “you need to make your own luck”. And i think this holds true where ever industry you are in. Create more chances, take more risks, makes more success.

Yeah, I mostly agree with this. Having the knowledge of what your players are earlier rather than later empowers you much more. That's where the young one-and-done players become much trickier. Like you said, they're drafted based off potential most often. Most top picks, from 1-3, represent a mix of displayed ready-now talent, with an elite physical profile. The potential there lies in their skill matching their profile, and making them an exceptional player that's a challenge to defend.

But it's a double edged sword. That's where you end up with guys like Wiggins on a max contract, which can cripple your financial flexibility. Unless you luck into drafting someone like Doncic, Durant, Davis, etc who can contribute at a high level from day 1, you could be looking at paying tens of millions of dollars before you know what you've actually got on your hands.

What I was getting at with older players being 'better value', is that whilst they often have a lower perceived ceiling, they also bring more matured games to the league. They adapt faster, and can make impact sooner. A 19 year old project might take 3-4 years before they're making an impact. A 22-23 year old senior might be able to make an impact from day 1. The young players could be on a $20M contract before they're revealing something close to an impactful game, whereas older prospects might still be on cheap rookie scale contracts whilst being impact players.

If you had to deal those players, having a few cheap and capable players could present better opportunity for future trades. If the Warriors had wanted to trade Draymond and Klay whilst they were still on their rookie contracts, they'd be able to have talks for many top tier stars for that kind of return. If your team had Siakam + Brogdon and you wanted to trade them this season whilst both are still on rookie deals, again, you could be looking at a solid return. But if the Wolves wanted to trade Wiggins, who knows what the returns would be. Parker was traded for Porter, representative of two bloated deals, one being swapped for the other because it was an expiring.

I think Cliff is a great coach to have in place to get the best out of an inexperienced core. I also think you're onto something in terms of euros offering better value deals more often than not, plus, they generally bring with them much more professional experience with earlier pro starts in Europe. It's still hard to pick who will transcend and who won't. Doncic felt obvious. Porzingis surprised. Mirotic and Bender were two of Europe's top prospects who have underwhelmed comparative to my expectations for them. But then there are the gems like Jokic, the Bogdanovic's, Dragic, Dirk and Vuc just to name a few.

Bensational wrote:

fendilim wrote:i dont think older rookies necessarily mean cheaper or more sustainable. The older rookies that come in, are the less talented players in the ncaa. If a freshman/sophomore decide to join the draft, its likely because they have more talent and are projected to be picked high because of it. What happens with older rookies is there are more information about them, their game, which really hurts their stocks.

The Warriors are an anomaly because of what happened with Steph, but its going to be tough for them to bring all back with the amount of max contracts they’ll have to start paying these guys soon.

Hitting on early picks is only short term success, imo. When they get into their 2nd or 3rd contract its going to be unsustainable.

Early picks = more financial investments.

See OKC (Durant, Westbrook, Ibaka, Harden). If you want from the past, chicago Bulls (chandler, deng, eddy curry). These high pick players get their 2nd contract because they can play and have the “potential” tag. Or go way back to the Clippers with Odom, Miles etc, unsustainable either because the owner refused to OPEN THE WALLET because of his “beliefs”.

Usually early picks gets a higher amount of contract based on the term “potential”. But what if they dont improve in their 2nd contract?

The thing with the spurs though. Man, tbh, i really think a lot of it comes down to having a good coach that maximizes each players strengths and mask their weakness. (See Gary Neal and Jonathan Simmons for example). But another is having european star players. Other than dirk and probably pau, who are lotto picks, there really hasnt been a lot of europeans that re-signed for max deals. Not only that, they are also more loyal.

Building a team is a mix and match. Its easy to build a team with multiple high draft picks, but making the success sustainable is more difficult.

I like what jerry West usually does, and something Hinkie tried to replicate. Jerry West usually traded players early if he doesnt see any potential in those guys. Prime example for Jerry is Drew gooden, and MCW for hinkie.

Being around a player for 7 days a week, gives you first hand information about their development progress, character, etc. if they dont see something, they flip the players right away, while their value around the league is still high. This is possibly something Hennigan missed out on with Eflrid.

Not saying I like Alex Martins, but Like what Alex Martin said when he fired Henni, if you miss out on high draft picks, “you need to make your own luck”. And i think this holds true where ever industry you are in. Create more chances, take more risks, makes more success.

Yeah, I mostly agree with this. Having the knowledge of what your players are earlier rather than later empowers you much more. That's where the young one-and-done players become much trickier. Like you said, they're drafted based off potential most often. Most top picks, from 1-3, represent a mix of displayed ready-now talent, with an elite physical profile. The potential there lies in their skill matching their profile, and making them an exceptional player that's a challenge to defend.

But it's a double edged sword. That's where you end up with guys like Wiggins on a max contract, which can cripple your financial flexibility. Unless you luck into drafting someone like Doncic, Durant, Davis, etc who can contribute at a high level from day 1, you could be looking at paying tens of millions of dollars before you know what you've actually got on your hands.

What I was getting at with older players being 'better value', is that whilst they often have a lower perceived ceiling, they also bring more matured games to the league. They adapt faster, and can make impact sooner. A 19 year old project might take 3-4 years before they're making an impact. A 22-23 year old senior might be able to make an impact from day 1. The young players could be on a $20M contract before they're revealing something close to an impactful game, whereas older prospects might still be on cheap rookie scale contracts whilst being impact players.

If you had to deal those players, having a few cheap and capable players could present better opportunity for future trades. If the Warriors had wanted to trade Draymond and Klay whilst they were still on their rookie contracts, they'd be able to have talks for many top tier stars for that kind of return. If your team had Siakam + Brogdon and you wanted to trade them this season whilst both are still on rookie deals, again, you could be looking at a solid return. But if the Wolves wanted to trade Wiggins, who knows what the returns would be. Parker was traded for Porter, representative of two bloated deals, one being swapped for the other because it was an expiring.

I think Cliff is a great coach to have in place to get the best out of an inexperienced core. I also think you're onto something in terms of euros offering better value deals more often than not, plus, they generally bring with them much more professional experience with earlier pro starts in Europe. It's still hard to pick who will transcend and who won't. Doncic felt obvious. Porzingis surprised. Mirotic and Bender were two of Europe's top prospects who have underwhelmed comparative to my expectations for them. But then there are the gems like Jokic, the Bogdanovic's, Dragic, Dirk and Vuc just to name a few.

A big component to drafting some older prospects is being able to give them enough minutes to see how capable they can be or become. A junior Bamba coming out of college is going to have 3 years of a college weight room and development behind him. His value will be lower arguably, but that is why players can handle more coming into a more physical league. A freshman Draymond Green would have less impact than one that stays at Michigan State for all four years. The same could be said about Brogdon staying all four years and being an immediate contributor and winning rookie of the year. Not entirely shocking.

Of course all of this is situational. Burying players on the bench behind short term vets and merely serviceable players is something that happens frequently as well. Had we drafted SGA we would not have needed to pick up Grant or MCW late in the season. He would be in a very good situation with Orlando with lots of opportunity.

Obviously our management believes in building a team with length and athletic ability. I think they'll look to upgrade the guard position.

Romeo Langford fits the bill in the draft and of course I think they try to move Fournier.

If they have a chance to get Brogdon I think the let Vuc walk. Brogdon is a super long guard who can also run the point.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

First off, thanks for switching debates from Magic to more objective ,philosophical side.

I'll just through 2013 draft to see what they signed, already did 2014 and common conclusion was that apart from Embiid, all were overpayed.

1# Pick Anthony Bennett - was not resigned
2# Victor Oladipo - 4 years , $85M ( $21M a year)
3# Otto Porter , 4 years , $107M ( $26,7M a year )
4# Cody Zeller 4 years , $56 ( 14 a year)
5# Alex Len -was not resigned
6# Noel, turned down 4 years $70M extension
7# Ben Mclemore - did not sign extension, played on QO this year as far as i know
8# KCP, signed with Lakers what turned out to be 1 year $18M than 1 years $12M contract
9# Trey Burke - did not sign extension, was out of league for a while
10# CJ McCullum, 4 year / $106,633,449 (27 a year )
11# MCW- see Trey Burke
12# Steven Adams -4 year / $100,000,000 (25 a year )
13#Kelly Olynyk - 4 year / $50,000,000 contrac (12,5 a year )
14# Shabazz- did not sign extension

bonus , not lottery pick, Giannis, 4 years $100M, signed after 17 ppg, 7 rpg season.

It's not hard to notice that apart ones who flat out sucked ( Bennett, Len, McLemore, MCW and Burke ) , 10 others signed contracts in range between $12 to $27 M a year. And almost all of them were locked on long 4 years contracts.

And this is core problem with rebuild through draft if you stay there for too long. 3 years pass by in second, and early extensions are up to grab. GMs don't want to step on toes ( and in pockets) of players they hope will turn into stars, so they offer them big money. Players sign, and most of them never really gets much better from rookie to "vets" contract. So you end up paying role player star money because you bet on untapped potential.

Otto Porter is maybe best example of role player who had some glimpses of stardom.
Upon his massive $26,5M a year contract, he was best 3 point shooter, by 3% for two years. Poised for Curry like breakup? Not really. Turning 26 soon, Otto is elite spot up shooter, but has no business being top 15 highest payed basketball players in the world.

As for older rookies, nba GMs love upside more than anything.
IF Bamba spent 3 years at college, there is good argument to be made that he would sniff nowhere near top 10 pick, as GMs keep drafting 19 years old with unknown potential (and suspicious floor ).
In 2017 for first time in draft history, all 5 prospects selected in top 5 were freshmen.
Ten of the first 11 picks were freshmen, and the one who wasn't, Frank Ntilikina, is an 18-year-old French player who didn't play college ball, and if he did,he would be freshman. So 11/11.

pepe1991 wrote:As for older rookies, nba GMs love upside more than anything.
IF Bamba spent 3 years at college, there is good argument to be made that he would sniff nowhere near top 10 pick, as GMs keep drafting 19 years old with unknown potential (and suspicious floor ).
In 2017 for first time in draft history, all 5 prospects selected in top 5 were freshmen.
Ten of the first 11 picks were freshmen, and the one who wasn't, Frank Ntilikina, is an 18-year-old French player who didn't play college ball, and if he did,he would be freshman. So 11/11.

More than likely Bamba would've dominated college this year.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

basketballRob wrote:

pepe1991 wrote:As for older rookies, nba GMs love upside more than anything.
IF Bamba spent 3 years at college, there is good argument to be made that he would sniff nowhere near top 10 pick, as GMs keep drafting 19 years old with unknown potential (and suspicious floor ).
In 2017 for first time in draft history, all 5 prospects selected in top 5 were freshmen.
Ten of the first 11 picks were freshmen, and the one who wasn't, Frank Ntilikina, is an 18-year-old French player who didn't play college ball, and if he did,he would be freshman. So 11/11.

More than likely Bamba would've dominated college this year.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

I just used him as example, could be said same for everybody else.
GMs kind a penalize prospects if they are sophomores, that's why i pointed that in 2017 first 11 picks were freshmen.

I will copy my post from 2019 free agency becouse it fits here more.
Our future free agency depends mostly on Fultz rehab. Lets say we give Ross 14 M and Vuc 24 M frontloaded in 2019.

2020 NBA Salary Cap Max 116 M Luxury Tax Threshold 141 M

We come into 2020 free agency with Gordon 18,1 M, Fournier 17 M, Isaac 7,3 M, Bamba 6M, 2019 rookie 2,5 M. Thats 51 M. Cap projects to be 118M so we have 67 M to spend. In 2020 its Ross 12 M, Vucevic 22 M.
7 players= 85 M.
We will have 2019 second round pick, 2020 first and second round pick. I will assume we will pay around 5 M for those.
10 players= 90 M.
This is still not the year we want to sign a star becouse its a very weak year. Lets assume we sign DJ for 5 M (1 year plus team option) and we can sign whoever develops best from Briscoe, Frazier, Justin Jackson, Iwundu(6M) + player from Europe(1M) + bargain free agent (around 8 M)= 20M.
14 players= 118-120M

2021 NBA Salary Cap Max 121 M Luxury Tax Threshold 146 M

Gordon 16,5 M, Bamba 7,5 M, Vucevic 20 M, Ross 10 M, 3 first round pick= 7M, 3 second round pick= 3 M
10 players= 64 M
Isaac extension
Fultz extension

Now all depends on Isaac and Fultz health and development. We will have around 57 M to salary cap space and 82 M to luxury tax. Lets say Fultz is healthy and reaches his #1 potential and so does Isaac.
Fultz 24 M + Isaac 19 M
Superstar around 35-38 M (Bradley Beal, Paul George, Jayson Tatum, CJ McCollum, Mitchell)
someone on veteran minimum (maybe DJ)

Fultz/veteran minimum/pick
Beal/Ross/pick
Gordon/pick/pick
Isaac/pick
Vucevic/Bamba/pick

Two superstars, 2-3 all stars, solid bench PG with DJ, Bamba coming into his own making Vuc a possible trade target, human torch and lots of wing/guard players on rookie scale contracts.

If Fultz doesny pan out we will have around 65 M to sign 3 players. We would need to trade for some PG and its really hard to predict now We will still decide what to do with Evan Fournier.

Trade/veteran minimum/pick
Beal/Ross/pick
George/pick/pick
Isaac/pick
Vucevic/Bamba/pick

I think we can resign Vucevic around 24 M frontloaded and Ross 12-14 frontloaded and still have room for 2 superstars in 2021. Bamba extension and Vucevic contract dont collide if we sign him for 3 years. If we sign him for 4 years there will be problem only if everyone of our young players is a star and Vucevic regresses to the point he is not tradable on a team friendly deal. Not likely. There is also a scenario where Bamba dont develops and then letting Vuc go looks stupid.

To approach this we have to understand that we're the Orlando Magic and not some mecca like the Knicks or Lakers. Our approach needs to be like the Spurs, Nuggets, and Raptors. And we're also trying to establish a culture of winning.

To establish a culture of winning, that means committing to the players that put us in winning situations (re-signing TRoss and Vuc). We could give TRoss a Lou Williams type contract (3-years, $24M) and could maybe even offer a little less than that. I would love to bring Vuc back on a 3-year, declining $27M deal ($27M his first year, declining by 8% after that). Retain Iwundu for sure. I would prefer to keep Birch, but another team would likely pay him more and he'd be a 3rd-string C for us.

That brings our roster to essentially the same spot as this year. Our biggest issues was shot creation from the perimeter (hopefully addressed with Fultz) and our bench. If Fultz is legit, DJ as our backup PG is tremendous. DJ as our starter is passable for at least another half season to see what we have in Fultz and we can go from there, DJ deserves that.

As for our bench, our biggest gap is at the backup 4 spot and its messed up our rotations later in the game because Isaac or Gordon typically need more rest and we haven't been able to play them together as much as we want. Being able to get someone like Jabari Parker, Rudy Gay, Marvin Williams, or Taj Gibson with the rest of our MLE would be awesome for us. I would also like to give Isiah Briscoe a minimum contract to be our 3rd string PG if he's willing, or MCW.

Fultz-Fournier-AG-Isaac-Vuc
DJ-TRoss-Iwundu-Jabari/Rudy/Marvin-Bamba


That's without our 16th pick and we'd hopefully get someone like NAW, Herro, or Keldon Johnson. Or we could get our backup 4 from the draft with either Rui or PJ Washington.

NotACat wrote:To approach this we have to understand that we're the Orlando Magic and not some mecca like the Knicks or Lakers. Our approach needs to be like the Spurs, Nuggets, and Raptors. And we're also trying to establish a culture of winning.

To establish a culture of winning, that means committing to the players that put us in winning situations (re-signing TRoss and Vuc). We could give TRoss a Lou Williams type contract (3-years, $24M) and could maybe even offer a little less than that. I would love to bring Vuc back on a 3-year, declining $27M deal ($27M his first year, declining by 8% after that). Retain Iwundu for sure. I would prefer to keep Birch, but another team would likely pay him more and he'd be a 3rd-string C for us.

That brings our roster to essentially the same spot as this year. Our biggest issues was shot creation from the perimeter (hopefully addressed with Fultz) and our bench. If Fultz is legit, DJ as our backup PG is tremendous. DJ as our starter is passable for at least another half season to see what we have in Fultz and we can go from there, DJ deserves that.

As for our bench, our biggest gap is at the backup 4 spot and its messed up our rotations later in the game because Isaac or Gordon typically need more rest and we haven't been able to play them together as much as we want. Being able to get someone like Jabari Parker, Rudy Gay, Marvin Williams, or Taj Gibson with the rest of our MLE would be awesome for us. I would also like to give Isiah Briscoe a minimum contract to be our 3rd string PG if he's willing, or MCW.

Fultz-Fournier-AG-Isaac-Vuc
DJ-TRoss-Iwundu-Jabari/Rudy/Marvin-Bamba


That's without our 16th pick and we'd hopefully get someone like NAW, Herro, or Keldon Johnson. Or we could get our backup 4 from the draft with either Rui or PJ Washington.

There are many ways we can aproach PF minutes. We can do what you suggested (i would add Grant Williams in our first round range). With second round pick we can target Isaiah Roby, Luka Samanic, Jalen Mcdaniels, Eric Paschall, Aric Holman to name a few... or we can draft SF and rotate Gordon/Isaac more within the PF position (one playing only PF minutes and the other spliting between both forward spots: 33 + 15/18+ 30 free SF minutes ) . I think it depends how Clifford sees Isaac/ Gordon and on the matchups.