RealGM

Now he can stop hustling game consoles and sit on a leather couch and play on one of them!

I liked what I saw from him last game and I want to see more.

Was hoping this was the case:



Same thing they did with Joe, dipping into the MLE.

He was better than I expected on the defensive end. He’s still figuring it out positioning-wise, but his hands are super active for a big.

youngcrev wrote:Was hoping this was the case:

Read on Twitter

Same thing they did with Joe, dipping into the MLE.

I thought you didn't have to go into the MLE to sign a guy to the minimum.

LloydFree wrote:

youngcrev wrote:Was hoping this was the case:

Read on Twitter

Same thing they did with Joe, dipping into the MLE.

I thought you didn't have to go into the MLE to sign a guy to the minimum.

It's because of the 3rd year

If Hinkie special is 2 yr guaranteed + 2 yr non-guaranteed, Morey special is 1 yr guaranteed + 2 yr non-guaranteed?

Why would reed sign a minimum deal? Maybe 1 million guaranteed for one year is enough for him. He probably thinks he better to take the 1 million (like the rest of us non athletes) cause that money may not come around again. (See Nerlens Noel turning down 4/60 million). So he’s humble to take the money

kuclas wrote:Why would reed sign a minimum deal? Maybe 1 million guaranteed for one year is enough for him. He probably thinks he better to take the 1 million (like the rest of us non athletes) cause that money may not come around again. (See Nerlens Noel turning down 4/60 million). So he’s humble to take the money

He doesn't have much leverage. Right now, his accolades are 2nd Round Pick, 77 minutes of NBA play, and G-League MVP. The G-League stuff sounds the best, but if you look at the list of of players they haven't exactly set the world on fire. Chris Boucher is doing OK, but the dudes 28. He didn't get to where he is (play or salary) after one season. Paul Reed could fall off the map like KJ McDaniels (who was in a similar situation).

Right now, he's probably looking for a role so he can make the big money. Not sure if it's explicit, but Sixers are obviously going to want him to fill a role and with his contract, it makes him pretty valuable. It's a win-win.

kuclas wrote:Why would reed sign a minimum deal? Maybe 1 million guaranteed for one year is enough for him. He probably thinks he better to take the 1 million (like the rest of us non athletes) cause that money may not come around again. (See Nerlens Noel turning down 4/60 million). So he’s humble to take the money

Exibit A: Christian Wood. Dominating the G-league doesn't guarantee you anything.

kuclas wrote:Why would reed sign a minimum deal? Maybe 1 million guaranteed for one year is enough for him. He probably thinks he better to take the 1 million (like the rest of us non athletes) cause that money may not come around again. (See Nerlens Noel turning down 4/60 million). So he’s humble to take the money

Because it's his first real chance at making a significant amount of money, and G League success doesn't guarantee anything for you.

I'm sure his choice was sign this or stay on your 2 way deal.

He took the money and the opportunity to earn a spot on the real team for the next 2 years.

youngcrev wrote:

kuclas wrote:Why would reed sign a minimum deal? Maybe 1 million guaranteed for one year is enough for him. He probably thinks he better to take the 1 million (like the rest of us non athletes) cause that money may not come around again. (See Nerlens Noel turning down 4/60 million). So he’s humble to take the money

Because it's his first real chance at making a significant amount of money, and G League success doesn't guarantee anything for you.
I'm sure his choice was sign this or stay on your 2 way deal.He took the money and the opportunity to earn a spot on the real team for the next 2 years.

I think he might have to sign a minimum deal. Here’s what the CBA says on it:
“All Two-Way Contracts must include the Standard NBA Contract Conversion Option. This option (once exercised) must provide for (i) salary equal to the player’s applicable minimum player salary”

Maybe it’s a salary cap thing, like you can’t shoe horn in a non-minimum contract through a two way, gotta just be the standard minimum (you can always add more minimum deals no matter your salary cap situation). Maybe not. Either way my guess is that the player can negotiate how many years he wants to sign that minimum for.

HotelVitale wrote:

youngcrev wrote:

kuclas wrote:Why would reed sign a minimum deal? Maybe 1 million guaranteed for one year is enough for him. He probably thinks he better to take the 1 million (like the rest of us non athletes) cause that money may not come around again. (See Nerlens Noel turning down 4/60 million). So he’s humble to take the money

Because it's his first real chance at making a significant amount of money, and G League success doesn't guarantee anything for you.
I'm sure his choice was sign this or stay on your 2 way deal.He took the money and the opportunity to earn a spot on the real team for the next 2 years.

I think he might have to sign a minimum deal. Here’s what the CBA says on it:
“All Two-Way Contracts must include the Standard NBA Contract Conversion Option. This option (once exercised) must provide for (i) salary equal to the player’s applicable minimum player salary”

Maybe it’s a salary cap thing, like you can’t shoe horn in a non-minimum contract through a two way, gotta just be the standard minimum (you can always add more minimum deals no matter your salary cap situation). Maybe not. Either way my guess is that the player can negotiate how many years he wants to sign that minimum for.

For the remainder of the season, not for an extra 2 years. So the leverage on the Sixers end is "sign this or we'll just keep you on a 2 way rather than converting you"

Years 2 and 3 are non-guaranteed, so that's certainly not in Reed's best interest

youngcrev wrote:

HotelVitale wrote: I think he might have to sign a minimum deal. Here’s what the CBA says on it:
“All Two-Way Contracts must include the Standard NBA Contract Conversion Option. This option (once exercised) must provide for (i) salary equal to the player’s applicable minimum player salary”

Maybe it’s a salary cap thing, like you can’t shoe horn in a non-minimum contract through a two way, gotta just be the standard minimum (you can always add more minimum deals no matter your salary cap situation). Maybe not. Either way my guess is that the player can negotiate how many years he wants to sign that minimum for.

For the remainder of the season, not for an extra 2 years. So the leverage on the Sixers end is "sign this or we'll just keep you on a 2 way rather than converting you" Years 2 and 3 are non-guaranteed, so that's certainly not in Reed's best interest

Yeah I said that. And I don't know how that stuff works but I doubt that they threatened not to convert him at all this year, seems like an aggressive/a-hole flex and also not in the team's best interest this year--he's a textbook case of a 2-way playing well enough and fitting a team need to be converted. I would guess that in negotiations they were basically like 'you'll have a good chance of sticking as a NG contract since both sides be familiar with the systems and personnel etc. But we can't give you a fully guaranteed deal so that's the best we can do.' Agents generally like those deals since it gets a step closer to a guaranteed $1.5m-$3m, and that's probably better than taking a smaller chance on more $ (if he entered UFA after this year).

HotelVitale wrote:

youngcrev wrote:

HotelVitale wrote: I think he might have to sign a minimum deal. Here’s what the CBA says on it:
“All Two-Way Contracts must include the Standard NBA Contract Conversion Option. This option (once exercised) must provide for (i) salary equal to the player’s applicable minimum player salary”

Maybe it’s a salary cap thing, like you can’t shoe horn in a non-minimum contract through a two way, gotta just be the standard minimum (you can always add more minimum deals no matter your salary cap situation). Maybe not. Either way my guess is that the player can negotiate how many years he wants to sign that minimum for.

For the remainder of the season, not for an extra 2 years. So the leverage on the Sixers end is "sign this or we'll just keep you on a 2 way rather than converting you" Years 2 and 3 are non-guaranteed, so that's certainly not in Reed's best interest

Yeah I said that. And I don't know how that stuff works but I doubt that they threatened not to convert him at all this year, seems like an aggressive/a-hole flex and also not in the team's best interest this year--he's a textbook case of a 2-way playing well enough and fitting a team need to be converted. I would guess that in negotiations they were basically like 'you'll have a good chance of sticking as a NG contract since both sides be familiar with the systems and personnel etc. But we can't give you a fully guaranteed deal so that's the best we can do.' Agents generally like those deals since it gets a step closer to a guaranteed $1.5m-$3m, and that's probably better than taking a smaller chance on more $ (if he entered UFA after this year).

I think that's kinda missing the point though. That may very well be part of the Sixers pitch to Reed's agent, but it's absolutely far more advantageous for the Sixers to have him for 2 more years on an unguaranteed minimum deal than it would be if simply had his deal converted for the remainder of the year, and I don't think that aspect is even debatable to be honest.

I'm sure the approach was more tactful than what I presented, but that's absolutely where their leverage lies in the a negotiation.

youngcrev wrote:

HotelVitale wrote:

youngcrev wrote: For the remainder of the season, not for an extra 2 years. So the leverage on the Sixers end is "sign this or we'll just keep you on a 2 way rather than converting you" Years 2 and 3 are non-guaranteed, so that's certainly not in Reed's best interest

Yeah I said that. And I don't know how that stuff works but I doubt that they threatened not to convert him at all this year, seems like an aggressive/a-hole flex and also not in the team's best interest this year--he's a textbook case of a 2-way playing well enough and fitting a team need to be converted. I would guess that in negotiations they were basically like 'you'll have a good chance of sticking as a NG contract since both sides be familiar with the systems and personnel etc. But we can't give you a fully guaranteed deal so that's the best we can do.' Agents generally like those deals since it gets a step closer to a guaranteed $1.5m-$3m, and that's probably better than taking a smaller chance on more $ (if he entered UFA after this year).

I think that's kinda missing the point though. That may very well be part of the Sixers pitch to Reed's agent, but it's absolutely far more advantageous for the Sixers to have him for 2 more years on an unguaranteed minimum deal than it would be if simply had his deal converted for the remainder of the year, and I don't think that aspect is even debatable to be honest. I'm sure the approach was more tactful than what I presented, but that's absolutely where their leverage lies in the a negotiation.

Ah I think I got you now, just realized that two-way players don't have to be converted to play in the playoffs this year. If that's the case then you're right, and it's not a particularly aggressive move to say 'we'll give you more money this year to do the same thing you'd do anyway, if you sign this longer deal that's good for us and not bad for you.'