RealGM

Ivica Zubac and the LA Clippers have agreed to a three-year, $58.6 million contract extension. The deal ties Zubac to the Clippers for $70 million through 27-28. 

Zubac will sign the maximum deal available to him for three seasons under the terms of the NBA's collective bargaining agreement.

Zubac averaged a career-high 11.7 points and 9.2 rebounds last season.

Via Adrian Wojnarowski/ESPN

Holy overpay! That’s a lot of money for a mid player. Very on brand for the clippers

lol ....not even sure he should be in the nba...overpay

Furinkazan wrote:lol ....not even sure he should be in the nba...overpay

It's not an overpay really. This amount is the new starting rate for a good quality center. If you want to talk about overpaid, you can look at Nic Claxton.

circa70 wrote:Holy overpay! That’s a lot of money for a mid player. Very on brand for the clippers

That's the starting rate though? If you adjust the numbers 10-15 years ago, that deal is 3 years $30-36 Million.

MitchB3 wrote:

circa70 wrote:Holy overpay! That’s a lot of money for a mid player. Very on brand for the clippers

That's the starting rate though? If you adjust the numbers 10-15 years ago, that deal is 3 years $30-36 Million.

I agree. He's been their starting center since 2018 and probably will continue to be their starter for at least some if not most of that 3 year extension. Feels right in line to me. Not an overpay or an underpay.

My only hesitation is that if the clippers go full rebuild, which they might, this might be unnecessary salary. Maybe they plan to trade him to the Knicks in 6 months.

they should of kept hartenstein but of course they didnt read the room.

MitchB3 wrote:

Furinkazan wrote:lol ....not even sure he should be in the nba...overpay

It's not an overpay really. This amount is the new starting rate for a good quality center. If you want to talk about overpaid, you can look at Nic Claxton.

1) You don't need to respond to someone suggesting that Zubac shouldn't be in the NBA... that's just silly.

2) Nobody wants Claxton at $28.4m, but Claxton is on a great deal for BRK. They don't have anyone to pay other than Cam Thomas. (Hopefully they don't overvalue him.) And they aren't trying to win anything anytime soon. Claxton's cap hit projection by year is: 20%/17%/14%/11.5%. So he goes from good but expensive to good on a value contract. And he's only 25, so his cost is going down while his skills are going up. That contract is tradeable now, but his trade value will be at its peak right when BRK is trying to start winning again. Then again, maybe things are going well at the end of that contract and they keep him in BRK.

I am far more skeptical of the Ayton and Hartenstein contracts. A star that doesn't love basketball and a role player being paid like a star. I really don't know what either GM was thinking. Ayton isn't a bust, but he is not "that guy". And OKC has the assets to trade for just about any center on a reasonable contract, so why overpay in free agency? Hartenstein's been in the NBA for six season, played for five teams and started just 61 games, primarily as an injury replacement. Now he's the 7th highest paid center in the NBA. Were all of his coaches wrong?

Furinkazan wrote:lol ....not even sure he should be in the nba...overpay

what?

Pickled Prunes wrote:
1) You don't need to respond to someone suggesting that Zubac shouldn't be in the NBA... that's just silly.

2) Nobody wants Claxton at $28.4m, but Claxton is on a great deal for BRK. They don't have anyone to pay other than Cam Thomas. (Hopefully they don't overvalue him.) And they aren't trying to win anything anytime soon. Claxton's cap hit projection by year is: 20%/17%/14%/11.5%. So he goes from good but expensive to good on a value contract. And he's only 25, so his cost is going down while his skills are going up. That contract is tradeable now, but his trade value will be at its peak right when BRK is trying to start winning again. Then again, maybe things are going well at the end of that contract and they keep him in BRK.

I am far more skeptical of the Ayton and Hartenstein contracts. A star that doesn't love basketball and a role player being paid like a star. I really don't know what either GM was thinking. Ayton isn't a bust, but he is not "that guy". And OKC has the assets to trade for just about any center on a reasonable contract, so why overpay in free agency? Hartenstein's been in the NBA for six season, played for five teams and started just 61 games, primarily as an injury replacement. Now he's the 7th highest paid center in the NBA. Were all of his coaches wrong?

I-Hart stepped up his game. The Knicks started using him as a kind of point-center, running the offense through him and he did a good job. If he can hit 60% of his shots and hit the open man, then he's effective on offense and he's also effective on defense. Over his last 24 games for NYK, 25 minutes per game he averaged 3.6 assists. That's not bad.

What's more, I-Hart has been a good playoff player when teams step up their game, not just a regular season stat stuffer.

He's still a role player, not a stud, but OKC is gambling that I-Hart is what they need to put them over the top, and if it doesn't work, they can buy him out after 2 year without losing that much beyond a bit of money.

The question to ask is, whether he's the best free agent they could have added for the money and I don't know if he is, but they're gambling that he's the piece they need to improve their team. That and they had to offer him this much or he'd have returned to the Knicks. They had to outbid the Knicks by a healthy amount of I-Hart would have probably taken NY's max offer of I think 4-72.

Luv those Knicks wrote:

Pickled Prunes wrote:
1) You don't need to respond to someone suggesting that Zubac shouldn't be in the NBA... that's just silly.

2) Nobody wants Claxton at $28.4m, but Claxton is on a great deal for BRK. They don't have anyone to pay other than Cam Thomas. (Hopefully they don't overvalue him.) And they aren't trying to win anything anytime soon. Claxton's cap hit projection by year is: 20%/17%/14%/11.5%. So he goes from good but expensive to good on a value contract. And he's only 25, so his cost is going down while his skills are going up. That contract is tradeable now, but his trade value will be at its peak right when BRK is trying to start winning again. Then again, maybe things are going well at the end of that contract and they keep him in BRK.

I am far more skeptical of the Ayton and Hartenstein contracts. A star that doesn't love basketball and a role player being paid like a star. I really don't know what either GM was thinking. Ayton isn't a bust, but he is not "that guy". And OKC has the assets to trade for just about any center on a reasonable contract, so why overpay in free agency? Hartenstein's been in the NBA for six season, played for five teams and started just 61 games, primarily as an injury replacement. Now he's the 7th highest paid center in the NBA. Were all of his coaches wrong?

I-Hart stepped up his game. The Knicks started using him as a kind of point-center, running the offense through him and he did a good job. If he can hit 60% of his shots and hit the open man, then he's effective on offense and he's also effective on defense. Over his last 24 games for NYK, 25 minutes per game he averaged 3.6 assists. That's not bad.

What's more, I-Hart has been a good playoff player when teams step up their game, not just a regular season stat stuffer.

He's still a role player, not a stud, but OKC is gambling that I-Hart is what they need to put them over the top, and if it doesn't work, they can buy him out after 2 year without losing that much beyond a bit of money.

The question to ask is, whether he's the best free agent they could have added for the money and I don't know if he is, but they're gambling that he's the piece they need to improve their team. That and they had to offer him this much or he'd have returned to the Knicks. They had to outbid the Knicks by a healthy amount of I-Hart would have probably taken NY's max offer of I think 4-72.

Everything you say here is true, but the answer to your question is: It doesn't matter if he was the best thing OKC could get in free agency. They have an excess of picks. They didn't need to overpay in free agency. I like I-hart, but it was clearly an overpay.

I'm not saying that it won't work out for OKC; they were going to be good either way. But to make Hartenstein one of the 50 highest paid players in the NBA when they already have Holmgren (a rising star) playing the same position... it seems a bit nuts. I can't wait to see how this plan unfolds.

Happy for Zu considering how things went with the Lakers.

Luv those Knicks wrote:

MitchB3 wrote:

circa70 wrote:Holy overpay! That’s a lot of money for a mid player. Very on brand for the clippers

That's the starting rate though? If you adjust the numbers 10-15 years ago, that deal is 3 years $30-36 Million.

I agree. He's been their starting center since 2018 and probably will continue to be their starter for at least some if not most of that 3 year extension. Feels right in line to me. Not an overpay or an underpay.

My only hesitation is that if the clippers go full rebuild, which they might, this might be unnecessary salary. Maybe they plan to trade him to the Knicks in 6 months.

Even if they enter rebuild, you still have to "overpay" a player because you have to meet the ceiling floor, when it comes to spending.

Pickled Prunes wrote:

MitchB3 wrote:

Furinkazan wrote:lol ....not even sure he should be in the nba...overpay

It's not an overpay really. This amount is the new starting rate for a good quality center. If you want to talk about overpaid, you can look at Nic Claxton.

1) You don't need to respond to someone suggesting that Zubac shouldn't be in the NBA... that's just silly.

2) Nobody wants Claxton at $28.4m, but Claxton is on a great deal for BRK. They don't have anyone to pay other than Cam Thomas. (Hopefully they don't overvalue him.) And they aren't trying to win anything anytime soon. Claxton's cap hit projection by year is: 20%/17%/14%/11.5%. So he goes from good but expensive to good on a value contract. And he's only 25, so his cost is going down while his skills are going up. That contract is tradeable now, but his trade value will be at its peak right when BRK is trying to start winning again. Then again, maybe things are going well at the end of that contract and they keep him in BRK.

I am far more skeptical of the Ayton and Hartenstein contracts. A star that doesn't love basketball and a role player being paid like a star. I really don't know what either GM was thinking. Ayton isn't a bust, but he is not "that guy". And OKC has the assets to trade for just about any center on a reasonable contract, so why overpay in free agency? Hartenstein's been in the NBA for six season, played for five teams and started just 61 games, primarily as an injury replacement. Now he's the 7th highest paid center in the NBA. Were all of his coaches wrong?

Sam Presti doesn't really make "stupid" decisions, so adding Hartenstein seems pretty reasonable, especially how they needed a rebounder.

Claxton, is on that "well we have to pay someone" contract, which the Nets did it to themselves.

MitchB3 wrote:

Luv those Knicks wrote:

MitchB3 wrote:

That's the starting rate though? If you adjust the numbers 10-15 years ago, that deal is 3 years $30-36 Million.

I agree. He's been their starting center since 2018 and probably will continue to be their starter for at least some if not most of that 3 year extension. Feels right in line to me. Not an overpay or an underpay.

My only hesitation is that if the clippers go full rebuild, which they might, this might be unnecessary salary. Maybe they plan to trade him to the Knicks in 6 months.

Even if they enter rebuild, you still have to "overpay" a player because you have to meet the ceiling floor, when it comes to spending.

That's true, but you don't have to extend them for 3 years in addition to next season, so 4 years total.

One year contracts fill up the cap floor just as well as 3/4 year contracts do.

MitchB3 wrote:

Pickled Prunes wrote:

MitchB3 wrote:

It's not an overpay really. This amount is the new starting rate for a good quality center. If you want to talk about overpaid, you can look at Nic Claxton.

1) You don't need to respond to someone suggesting that Zubac shouldn't be in the NBA... that's just silly.

2) Nobody wants Claxton at $28.4m, but Claxton is on a great deal for BRK. They don't have anyone to pay other than Cam Thomas. (Hopefully they don't overvalue him.) And they aren't trying to win anything anytime soon. Claxton's cap hit projection by year is: 20%/17%/14%/11.5%. So he goes from good but expensive to good on a value contract. And he's only 25, so his cost is going down while his skills are going up. That contract is tradeable now, but his trade value will be at its peak right when BRK is trying to start winning again. Then again, maybe things are going well at the end of that contract and they keep him in BRK.

I am far more skeptical of the Ayton and Hartenstein contracts. A star that doesn't love basketball and a role player being paid like a star. I really don't know what either GM was thinking. Ayton isn't a bust, but he is not "that guy". And OKC has the assets to trade for just about any center on a reasonable contract, so why overpay in free agency? Hartenstein's been in the NBA for six season, played for five teams and started just 61 games, primarily as an injury replacement. Now he's the 7th highest paid center in the NBA. Were all of his coaches wrong?

Sam Presti doesn't really make "stupid" decisions, so adding Hartenstein seems pretty reasonable, especially how they needed a rebounder.

Claxton, is on that "well we have to pay someone" contract, which the Nets did it to themselves.

Of course Presti makes stupid decisions. He has done a great job of accumulating assets recently, but nobody is 100%. He's actually had some pretty major flops in his career. The Harden trade or the Oladipo extension come to mind. Letting Harden go almost certainly cost them a ring (or rings.) That could have been the foundation of a dynasty. But I would start with his coaching selections. Brooks and Donovan are below average coaches that squandered quality rosters for a decade.

You can also look at all the trades Presti has won recently and all the assets he has acquired and ask yourself why Gordon Hayward was the big move. The answer: he is afraid to lose a trade, which is in itself a huge mistake. He needs to be willing to take a big swing. That is probably why he went for Hartenstein in free agency; he didn't lose anything but cap flexibility.

All that said, I didn't say it was a "stupid" move; I said it was an overpay for the role I expect Hartenstein will play. It may work out great, not because he is worth $30m, but because he is an addition to an already stacked team. Overpaying him might have been the right move for the situation, time will tell... but it's still an overpay.


On Claxton: That deal looks great. BRK does need to pay someone, but that descending contract is going to be a hot commodity in a couple of seasons. They set themselves up real nice with that one!

Pickled Prunes wrote:
Everything you say here is true, but the answer to your question is: It doesn't matter if he was the best thing OKC could get in free agency. They have an excess of picks. They didn't need to overpay in free agency. I like I-hart, but it was clearly an overpay.

I'm not saying that it won't work out for OKC; they were going to be good either way. But to make Hartenstein one of the 50 highest paid players in the NBA when they already have Holmgren (a rising star) playing the same position... it seems a bit nuts. I can't wait to see how this plan unfolds.

They're a young team. They can trade a bunch of picks next off-season or at the deadline to add another piece. (Like the Knicks did for Mikal Bridges . . . curious how that will work out as well).

But as you say, wait and see how they do this year. Having 2 centers seemed to work for the Knicks in the playoffs. It might be a new model for teams trying to win a championship.

Luv those Knicks wrote:

MitchB3 wrote:

Luv those Knicks wrote:
I agree. He's been their starting center since 2018 and probably will continue to be their starter for at least some if not most of that 3 year extension. Feels right in line to me. Not an overpay or an underpay.

My only hesitation is that if the clippers go full rebuild, which they might, this might be unnecessary salary. Maybe they plan to trade him to the Knicks in 6 months.

Even if they enter rebuild, you still have to "overpay" a player because you have to meet the ceiling floor, when it comes to spending.

That's true, but you don't have to extend them for 3 years in addition to next season, so 4 years total.

One year contracts fill up the cap floor just as well as 3/4 year contracts do.

GMs don't overpay for 1 year and the agents don't usually agree. Unfortunately, it's usually a multiyear overpay.

Luv those Knicks wrote:

Pickled Prunes wrote:
Everything you say here is true, but the answer to your question is: It doesn't matter if he was the best thing OKC could get in free agency. They have an excess of picks. They didn't need to overpay in free agency. I like I-hart, but it was clearly an overpay.

I'm not saying that it won't work out for OKC; they were going to be good either way. But to make Hartenstein one of the 50 highest paid players in the NBA when they already have Holmgren (a rising star) playing the same position... it seems a bit nuts. I can't wait to see how this plan unfolds.

They're a young team. They can trade a bunch of picks next off-season or at the deadline to add another piece. (Like the Knicks did for Mikal Bridges . . . curious how that will work out as well).

But as you say, wait and see how they do this year. Having 2 centers seemed to work for the Knicks in the playoffs. It might be a new model for teams trying to win a championship.

Robinson only played in six games. As far as I know, he and Hartenstein were not on the floor together for a single second. Most good NBA teams have at least one solid backup center. None of them are among the top 50 highest paid players. I-Hart and Holmgren will nee to be on the floor together for significant minutes to justify the price tag.

It's interesting because OKC didn't get bounced by a dominant center... they got bounced by the perimeter play of Luka and Kyrie. DAl is not a big team. I think Caruso met a more immediate need for them and it cost them nothing.

Pickled Prunes wrote:
Robinson only played in six games. As far as I know, he and Hartenstein were not on the floor together for a single second. Most good NBA teams have at least one solid backup center. None of them are among the top 50 highest paid players. I-Hart and Holmgren will nee to be on the floor together for significant minutes to justify the price tag.

It's interesting because OKC didn't get bounced by a dominant center... they got bounced by the perimeter play of Luka and Kyrie. DAl is not a big team. I think Caruso met a more immediate need for them and it cost them nothing.

When I said 2 centers, I mean, 2 guys who share 48 minutes, not 2 centers at the same time. The twin towers experiment probably wouldn't work at all for NY, but asking each guy to play about 24 minutes keeps the big men fresh and rested and when NY was healthy, 2 centers sharing 48 minutes seemed to work well for them.

Granted, that doesn't work when Embiid goes out of his way to injure one of them, which he did.

But on your 2nd point . . . Those silly Mavericks had a good year last year, so you're right on that point. If OKC meet Dallas in the playoffs again and if I-Hart is no help, this deal might come under question. Mavs were smart to buy low on crazy Kyrie.