I said it last season : it was set to happen because we didn't have a roster full enough to avoid having young guys putting high individual stats in a loosing team.
Better have some veterans who can play a bit to play the young guys in a team full enough to match a contender roster, even if talent is lower.
Is written that once the roster would be build to be a playoffs team, and even more like a contender, that John would get less touches, especially if a good C playing inside was added because Trae would give him the ball too.
The thing that had to be fixed is that the coach has to make Trae not being upset by this, and convince John that he will get a higher offer if they win, not that if he's getting the same stats from last season and they are not winning.
shakes0 wrote:...JC wouldn't take $90 million. Would he have taken $100 million? Is it really worth saving $10 million to risk messing up an entire season where we are expected to make a run at a decent playoff seed?...
Yes, they should have offer a bit more, more than 100M because it's a psychological barrier.
I thought he should not get more than Sabonis, but would have been OK for a bit more if it was a decreasing contract.
myrak433 wrote:I believe in order for JC max to be 132M he had to be named to an All-Star team, or a All-NBA team twice, or been the MVP. JC has not done any of that so his max would be 25% of the cap (anually) which is 108M (now I am guessing). so a max for JC would be about 100M (104M) for 4 years.
If I'm not wrong, his Max was the same than Mitchell or Fox, so 163M/5yrs
The increased amount coming from All-Star or All NBA teams make it even higher (NBA first team, deal goes to $196 million, second NBA team, $183 million, third NBA team $170 million).
myrak433 wrote:We still need a legit 2nd scorer. Lavine, Beal, DeRozan.
I'm not agreeing at all, they are the kind of player that scores, but didn't prove anything about winning. They are bad in team defense, more than they're good in offense