**The Official Karl-Anthony Towns Thread: Part Two**

[Baseline81]

For those that are worried about Towns’ supermax after all the news of the super lux came down in the new CBA, I wrote a couple economics things for the Trade Board this morning that might allay some of your fears:

Ever since the max deal was created in the CBA during the 1998-99 lockout, many people have held the belief that only the truly elite players are deserving of the deal. This opinion is often stated as a fact, and economically, it’s pretty easy to disprove.

First, just to get it out of the way, the max is an artificial threshold. I have seen people argue that if you pay KAT what you pay Jokic, KAT’s deal must be a bad one. The truth is that both deals can be good, but you simply get less additional value with KAT. If I was selling cars for $5000, and I sold one person a new BMW for $5000, it doesn’t mean a new Camry for $5000 is a bad deal.

But let me address the heart of your issue - less money available for total team construction. In 24-25, when Towns extension kicks in, the second apron will be almost $180 mil. Team One could fill its 15 roster spots with $12 mil players. Team Two could fill its roster with Towns ($49) and 14 roster spots with $9.35 mil players. The NBA is a competition, so getting more production on the floor any given night is going to give one team a win, and the other a loss, even if they are close. This drives up the value of players that are even a “little bit better” than your guys. Finding bargains is important, but five Austin Reaves aren’t going to win games - you still need to maximize your total payroll to get the most production, to put better guys on the floor.

And just to be clear, there are limits to a team having multiple max deals, and MIN may be pushing into it with KAT, Gobert, Ant, and whatever McDaniels get paid. This is what the new CBA restrictions are about - multiple max deals. MIN has reason to be concerned in 2024-25.

However, since most teams don’t carry three max deal players, it creates auctions for buyers of sub-elite max players like Towns and Dame, and if they are still productive, will maintain trade value. This is another thing about max deals that many on the trade board (myself included) have gotten wrong for the last two decades, when we are shocked year after year by how much actual teams get in trade for their sub-elite max players, who we had previously deemed “untradable.”

Do the two underlines not contradict each other?

[shrink]

For me, fears >> concerns, and I want to allay “some” of the fears.

It’s realistic to have concerns, and having three max deals certainly matters for team construction. But I think the new CBA has flat out scared people, and some of those fears are overblown. For instance, the posts I responded to here was saying that Towns was now untradable, and that only guys like Jokic are worth max deals because of the new CBA. That’s just not the case.

[m2002brian]

For me, fears >> concerns, and I want to allay “some” of the fears.

It’s realistic to have concerns, and having three max deals certainly matters for team construction. But I think the new CBA has flat out scared people, and some of those fears are overblown. For instance, the posts I responded to here was saying that Towns was now untradable, and that only guys like Jokic are worth max deals because of the new CBA. That’s just not the case.

Agree. It’s not so much a fear of KAT and Ant and Rudy on maxs. It that you’re not getting what you pay for with 2 of them. That’s bad.

It’s about production to cap space.

Much rather have Jalen Brown and Ant and Rudy on max contracts than KAT and Ant and Rudy.
JB and Ant would just be much more productive / $ and Rudy stills makes us a top 10 defense.

And if we’re going to have hope and optimism for next season. I’d rather place that on Rudy getting back healthy and being close to Rudy 2 seasons ago. Because Rudy has shown his game translates to winning.

[Klomp]

It’s realistic to have concerns, and having three max deals certainly matters for team construction. But I think the new CBA has flat out scared people, and some of those fears are overblown. For instance, the posts I responded to here was saying that Towns was now untradable, and that only guys like Jokic are worth max deals because of the new CBA. That’s just not the case.

The other thing important to fight back against is the punitive perception of the new CBA. From what I've seen, the only new penalties the CBA added have to do with the second apron. That's roughly $17 million above the luxury tax. This season, only 6 teams would be in that category: Clippers, Warriors, Bucks, Celtics, Mavericks, Suns. They are the teams that will be affected most by this change, not the Timberwolves.

[shrink]

It’s realistic to have concerns, and having three max deals certainly matters for team construction. But I think the new CBA has flat out scared people, and some of those fears are overblown. For instance, the posts I responded to here was saying that Towns was now untradable, and that only guys like Jokic are worth max deals because of the new CBA. That’s just not the case.

The other thing important to fight back against is the punitive perception of the new CBA. From what I've seen, the only new penalties the CBA added have to do with the second apron. That's roughly $17 million above the luxury tax. This season, only 6 teams would be in that category: Clippers, Warriors, Bucks, Celtics, Mavericks, Suns. They are the teams that will be affected most by this change, not the Timberwolves.

Exactly. In addition, the cba LOWERED the penalties for going over the lux!

So in effect, they have tried to penalize the teams that go excessively over the lux with the second apron, and encourage more teams to spend over the lux, right up to that second apron.

[urinesane]

For me, fears >> concerns, and I want to allay “some” of the fears.

It’s realistic to have concerns, and having three max deals certainly matters for team construction. But I think the new CBA has flat out scared people, and some of those fears are overblown. For instance, the posts I responded to here was saying that Towns was now untradable, and that only guys like Jokic are worth max deals because of the new CBA. That’s just not the case.

Agree. It’s not so much a fear of KAT and Ant and Rudy on maxs. It that you’re not getting what you pay for with 2 of them. That’s bad.

It’s about production to cap space.

Much rather have Jalen Brown and Ant and Rudy on max contracts than KAT and Ant and Rudy.
JB and Ant would just be much more productive / $ and Rudy stills makes us a top 10 defense.

And if we’re going to have hope and optimism for next season. I’d rather place that on Rudy getting back healthy and being close to Rudy 2 seasons ago. Because Rudy has shown his game translates to winning.

When have the Wolves historically ever gotten what they paid for? I understand that it seems like dollar to dollar it should equate to certain production when looking at other franchises/players, but there are a lot of other factors at play that often times make it so that smaller market teams have to pay more to keep their stars than bigger market teams do (often to aquire stars). There is a premium that smaller market/less successful franchises have to pay and it sucks, but it's the reality of things.

Since I am not paying the bills, I don't really care about how much things cost. I care more about how well they put together a roster that can compete each year, than how much they are paying for it (and by all accounts they've put together one of the best rosters/if not the best in franchise history).

If they are winning consistently, then that is a major difference than what they got for their money in the past (which in my opinion is a major upgrade).

[Klomp]

Since I am not paying the bills, I don't really care about how much things cost. I care more about how well they put together a roster that can compete each year, than how much they are paying for it (and by all accounts they've put together one of the best rosters/if not the best in franchise history).

If they are winning consistently, then that is a major difference than what they got for their money in the past (which in my opinion is a major upgrade).

I think this is where the biggest differences of opinion come into play.

Everyone has their own method to create a competitive roster, and everyone has a different definition of "winning".

[urinesane]

Since I am not paying the bills, I don't really care about how much things cost. I care more about how well they put together a roster that can compete each year, than how much they are paying for it (and by all accounts they've put together one of the best rosters/if not the best in franchise history).

If they are winning consistently, then that is a major difference than what they got for their money in the past (which in my opinion is a major upgrade).

I think this is where the biggest differences of opinion come into play.

Everyone has their own method to create a competitive roster, and everyone has a different definition of "winning".

No matter what, for me, I will never forget how bad it's been. I will always appreciate them winning more games than they lose, regardless of how high expectations rise, because that was such a rare thing for so long. That doesn't mean that I would want them to just be .500 and be thrilled forever, but I think it's important to appreciate the improvements/progress, otherwise you miss a lot of potential enjoyment (and more importantly gratitude).

I'd love them to compete for championships and consistently improve over the years, but I am not willing to spend the amount of time that I do following this team and constantly raise my threshold for enjoyment (it's like hitting yourself).

[shangrila]

At this point I no longer view KAT as a ceiling raiser. He most certainly raises a team's floor, and that has value, but I don't see him as ever being capable of leading a team deep (if at all) into the playoffs. Too many consistent mental mistakes, emotional outbursts and fundamental errors on defence with very little in the way of improvement in those areas over his career.

That doesn't mean I think he sucks either but it does raise serious concerns about his contract. You don't pay your 2nd or 3rd best player a sueprmax. Hell, for most teams you shouldn't be paying your best player that. Those kinds of contracts should be reserved for the best of the best, top 5-10 guys in the entire league. And KAT isn't close to that level.

That's why I'm ready to move on. Get good players for him, ideally someone that's either a similar calibre without the supermax or a younger guy that might reach that level and move on with reshaping the roster around Ant.

[Klomp]

That doesn't mean I think he sucks either but it does raise serious concerns about his contract. You don't pay your 2nd or 3rd best player a sueprmax. Hell, for most teams you shouldn't be paying your best player that. Those kinds of contracts should be reserved for the best of the best, top 5-10 guys in the entire league. And KAT isn't close to that level.

I understand why you feel that way, and I know it is a popular sentiment. However, based on the CBA itself, that's just not the reality of who those contracts are "reserved" for.

Now, whether it is sustainable for a small-market team to build a team with those constraints already on the roster, that is a different story. But I think it's possible.

[Klomp]

Read on Twitter

[shangrila]

That doesn't mean I think he sucks either but it does raise serious concerns about his contract. You don't pay your 2nd or 3rd best player a sueprmax. Hell, for most teams you shouldn't be paying your best player that. Those kinds of contracts should be reserved for the best of the best, top 5-10 guys in the entire league. And KAT isn't close to that level.

I understand why you feel that way, and I know it is a popular sentiment. However, based on the CBA itself, that's just not the reality of who those contracts are "reserved" for.

That's who they're intended for. As you point out though that isn't how it works out. Now it's a suckers tax that small market teams have to pay to keep second tier stars.

Now, whether it is sustainable for a small-market team to build a team with those constraints already on the roster, that is a different story. But I think it's possible.

It depends on the player. I wouldn't have this issue with Edwards, even if he never really developed much beyond this point. But KAT is too much of a one way guy that doesn't step up in the playoffs. You can't tie a 3rd of your cap into someone like that.

To be honest I soured on KAT a while ago. I hoped he could prove me wrong but all of the things that turned me off him initially haven't changed enough. The whining, the failing to get back in transition, the general defensive issues, the weirdly poor rebounding when he's with Gobert, the constant offensive fouls from flailing his arms, etc. I just want him gone. I don't enjoy watching him play, I don't think he's the difference between us winning or losing a championship...so let's just move on. Get out from his future albatross contract, get some valuable pieces, keep building around Ant.

[shrink]

That doesn't mean I think he sucks either but it does raise serious concerns about his contract. You don't pay your 2nd or 3rd best player a sueprmax. Hell, for most teams you shouldn't be paying your best player that. Those kinds of contracts should be reserved for the best of the best, top 5-10 guys in the entire league. And KAT isn't close to that level.

I understand why you feel that way, and I know it is a popular sentiment. However, based on the CBA itself, that's just not the reality of who those contracts are "reserved" for.

That's who they're intended for. As you point out though that isn't how it works out. Now it's a suckers tax that small market teams have to pay to keep second tier stars.

No, it’s not just intended for the top 5-10 guys. That’s just your personal opinion, stated like a fact.

In fact, the supermax is the LEAST subjective (not “intended for whatever my opinion is?”) of any CBA contract, because it is the only one that has a production requirement to be eligible for it.

Be named to an All-NBA team in the most recent season or two in the last three seasons.

Be named Defensive Player of the Year in the most recent season or two in the last three seasons.

Be named MVP in any of the three previous seasons

It is specifically designed this way so actual “second tier stars” that can’t reach these lofty goals aren’t allowed to beg for a higher percent of the max. Plus for the elite players that reach these goals, only their own team can offer it to them, so small market teams have a way to keep their elite players by offering more than others..

[shrink]

I also wanted to take this opportunity to let people know that it is no sure thing that Ant will be getting a supermax in a couple years as well.

First, a little groundwork. Ant’s supermax would only be the Designated Rookie Exception (older people may know the nickname, “The Derrick Rose Rule”). Rose was so good while on his rookie scale contract that he actually was the NBA MVP, and it seemed unfair for him to just getting the max for a player with four years of service (25%). By meeting the production criteria, a player is able to get an additional 5% of the salary cap, so a DRE goes from 25% to 30% (and the Designated Veteran exception can go from 30% to 35%).

As we know, Ant didn’t make All NBA this year - he was barely an All Star replacement. By not making All NBA, he has no room for error to get the DRE - he needs to make All NBA this year and next year. People may say, “No problem, he’ll be a top 15 player both years!” but it’s harder than you might think. There are many, extremely talented players in the league, most in NBA markets that draw more attention from the media, who vote on this award. This year, guys like Devin Booker and Anthony Davis were unable to repeat.

So you might think, “OK, even if he misses one, he’ll make it up next year. He can get meet that “two of the last three rule.” Unfortunately for Ant, he can’t, and it’s because of timing. If he makes All NBA in 2025 and 2026, he will already be on a new contract, and the CBA does not allow extensions for for two years after the signing date of a 3-5 year contract. Ant’s next extension, which he hopefully signs next month, will carry language that allows it to move to DRE, but if he doesn’t get there until 2026, the base year of 2024-2025 will be established, and 8% max raises off that number will be limited. This is why Pascal Siakim was ineligible for the Designated Vet Exception, even though he made All NBA twice .. the timing killed him.

Now, I love Ant, and I think he can become a superstar. I hope he succeeds in getting the DRE, but if he doesn’t he’ll need to wait until his seventh year before he can get an extension with the extra 5%, and make that production criteria.

[shangrila]

I understand why you feel that way, and I know it is a popular sentiment. However, based on the CBA itself, that's just not the reality of who those contracts are "reserved" for.

That's who they're intended for. As you point out though that isn't how it works out. Now it's a suckers tax that small market teams have to pay to keep second tier stars.

No, it’s not just intended for the top 5-10 guys. That’s just your personal opinion, stated like a fact.

In fact, the supermax is the LEAST subjective (not “intended for whatever my opinion is?”) of any CBA contract, because it is the only one that has a production requirement to be eligible for it.

Be named to an All-NBA team in the most recent season or two in the last three seasons.

Be named Defensive Player of the Year in the most recent season or two in the last three seasons.

Be named MVP in any of the three previous seasons

It is specifically designed this way so actual “second tier stars” that can’t reach these lofty goals aren’t allowed to beg for a higher percent of the max. Plus for the elite players that reach these goals, only their own team can offer it to them, so small market teams have a way to keep their elite players by offering more than others..

Of course it's my opinion. Never stated it was a fact. Thought that should have been obvious but maybe I needed a disclaimer? I'll take that under advisement. In the meantime kindly step off your high horse, cheers.

Right, so are you arguing that whoever is eligible for a supermax deserves it? Does context matter? Or is it purely black and white with you?

And are you trying to argue that KAT isn't a tier below guys like Jokic or Embiid? That's just positionally too. How do you compare KAT to guys like Giannis, Steph, Lebron, Luka? Because if you think he's not on the same tier as those guys he is, by definition, in the second tier of stars.

But to summarise my position, IT IS MY OPINION that if the league always had this positionless All-NBA award that they're adopting moving forward KAT would never have gotten voted on and thus would never have been eligible. IT IS MY OPINION that, given the previously mentioned changes, KAT will never see another All-NBA award in his career. IT IS MY OPINION that even though he has technically qualified for a supermax contract he is not, in fact, actually worth it and that few players actually are. And IT IS MY OPINION that the supermax is intended for the best of the best players to try and keep them in smaller market teams rather than having them demand trades to bigger markets, but has unfortunately created situations where flawed, 2nd tier stars are the majority of the recipients which lead to their teams being capped out, financially burdened and ultimately end in a sad conclusion where they just want to get off the contract entirely.

The above is presented as MY OPINION and is not to be confused with facts. Agree or disagree with MY OPINION as you like, just please don't confuse them with facts. I wouldn't want that.

[shrink]

Ok, maybe I’m reading your post differently than you intend. You said that your opinion was the “intent of the CBA rule.” The opposite is true - the CBA rule has very specific, observable, production standards for who is even eligible, and they do not say their intent is that it’s only for “top 5-10 players,” and they do not say, that it’s not for the “second tier.”

Second, we should probably just skip the “second tier” talk anyway, because it is a logical red herring anyway. Depending on how fine you want to slice the salami, Jokic is in a different tier than Luka, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t worth the supermax. We could have 25 different tiers for the top 25 players.

Third, whatever the tiers anyone slices, it does not mean being lower in a tier means they aren’t worth it. In my previous example, I can name ten super-luxury cars that are easily worth a $5000 price tag. That does not mean the new Toyota Rav-4 isn’t also worth the $5000 too. The supermax is an artificial threshold, not an economic one, and you don’t have to be on the highest “tier” to be worth it - even if choose to draw your tier at top 5-10 players.
…

Right, so are you arguing that whoever is eligible for a supermax deserves it? Does context matter? Or is it purely black and white with you?

To me, this is the most interesting question. I want to give it the time it deserves. All max deals limit the amount a team can pay, even if the player is worth more. This protects the owners and provides a little parity. But does the existence of the rule create expectation issues, if a player believes he deserves the max, but the team doesn’t think he’s max-worthy? The regular max doesn’t have any production requirements - is that a good thing?

[shrink]

I also wanted to stress that it isn’t financially constricting to have one supermax player on the roster. A team can still be built easily. The problem is having multiple high salary players.

Let me give you some numbers for context.

2023-24 Salary Cap: $134
2023-24 Luxury Threshold: $162
2023-24 Super-Lux Threshold: $179.5

I’m not going to look it up, but the lux threshold is 120% of the salary cap, and the superlux is 135%.

Remember that a supermax is 35% of the salary cap, not payroll. So if a team wants a payroll just under the superlux, (and the new rules reduce the penalties for exceeding the lux), that a player can pay a supermax player 35%, and still have the full salary cap ($134 mil) to complete the roster.

[urinesane]

That's who they're intended for. As you point out though that isn't how it works out. Now it's a suckers tax that small market teams have to pay to keep second tier stars.

No, it’s not just intended for the top 5-10 guys. That’s just your personal opinion, stated like a fact.

In fact, the supermax is the LEAST subjective (not “intended for whatever my opinion is?”) of any CBA contract, because it is the only one that has a production requirement to be eligible for it.

Be named to an All-NBA team in the most recent season or two in the last three seasons.

Be named Defensive Player of the Year in the most recent season or two in the last three seasons.

Be named MVP in any of the three previous seasons

It is specifically designed this way so actual “second tier stars” that can’t reach these lofty goals aren’t allowed to beg for a higher percent of the max. Plus for the elite players that reach these goals, only their own team can offer it to them, so small market teams have a way to keep their elite players by offering more than others..

Of course it's my opinion. Never stated it was a fact. Thought that should have been obvious but maybe I needed a disclaimer? I'll take that under advisement. In the meantime kindly step off your high horse, cheers.

Right, so are you arguing that whoever is eligible for a supermax deserves it? Does context matter? Or is it purely black and white with you?

And are you trying to argue that KAT isn't a tier below guys like Jokic or Embiid? That's just positionally too. How do you compare KAT to guys like Giannis, Steph, Lebron, Luka? Because if you think he's not on the same tier as those guys he is, by definition, in the second tier of stars.

But to summarise my position, IT IS MY OPINION that if the league always had this positionless All-NBA award that they're adopting moving forward KAT would never have gotten voted on and thus would never have been eligible. IT IS MY OPINION that, given the previously mentioned changes, KAT will never see another All-NBA award in his career. IT IS MY OPINION that even though he has technically qualified for a supermax contract he is not, in fact, actually worth it and that few players actually are. And IT IS MY OPINION that the supermax is intended for the best of the best players to try and keep them in smaller market teams rather than having them demand trades to bigger markets, but has unfortunately created situations where flawed, 2nd tier stars are the majority of the recipients which lead to their teams being capped out, financially burdened and ultimately end in a sad conclusion where they just want to get off the contract entirely.

The above is presented as MY OPINION and is not to be confused with facts. Agree or disagree with MY OPINION as you like, just please don't confuse them with facts. I wouldn't want that.

Calm down fella. Oh no, he implied that you implied something, welcome to the internet.

"Deserves" is such a silly word to argue about, because it's completely subjective, same with fairness. You can list players and put them into tiers, but how about you go ahead and list those franchises and their tiers as well? That's who's paying these players, and the fact of life when it comes to the NBA is that bad franchises have to pay a premium for talent, especially to keep talented players while they rebuild/retool.

If you don't make a lot of revenue, have historic success, a large market, etc, you don't get the same quality for your money. To expect otherwise is living in the same world where people deserve things and life is fair (i.e. the one that exists in your head).

[frankenwolf]

Let's take a look at the to 10 salaries in the NBA last season and see who deserves their salary:

1. Stephen Curry $48,070,014
2. John Wall $47,345,760
3. Russell Westbrook $47,080,179
4. LeBron James $44,474,988
5. Kevin Durant $44,119,845
6. Bradley Beal $43,279,250
7. Paul George $42,492,492
7. Kawhi Leonard $42,492,492
7. Giannis Antetokounmpo $42,492,492
7. Damian Lillard $42,492,492

So, is John Wall worth 47+ million? What about Westbrook? Is KD REALLY worth 44+ million? Brad Beal? The Clipper twins. who only play 1/2 of their teams games? Dame, IMO, isn't worth 43 million either.

Out of those top 10 salaries, how many of them have lead their current teams to the promised land of NBA championship? Heck, how many have been to an NBA finals? 2 of them have lead their current team to the championship and only 5 have been to the finals.

Worth is a perception number. If I perceive that LeBron James is worth 50 million, then what is to stop me from paying it? Oh yeah, the cap limits, set originally to keep owners from giving out tons of money (See KG's contract prior to cap limits). However, I am willing to pay LBJ the max, just as Glen was willing to pay KAT the max. Should the super max be reserved just for the generational talents like LeBron, MJ, Kareem, Magic, KG? Sure, but that is not going to happen as long as someone is willing to pay your star more than you perceive him to be worth. If you want to keep the star, you pay him the most you can to keep him.

[Klomp]

A lot of people here are looking for star return. But let's remember that unless that star is early in a rookie deal, you are only delaying the inevitable cap situation by a season at most. Swapping out Towns for Jaylen Brown doesn't solve the money problem. It may even exacerbate it.

Edwards makes role player level money for one more season. McDaniels makes essentially vet minimum money for one more season. Anderson and Prince make role player money for one more season on their current deals. Conley is on the books for low-level starter money for one more season.

Edwards and McDaniels are about to be third and fourth (at worst) on the salary chart. The slots that need to be replenished are below them, in the $10-20 million range. Reid and Alexander-Walker could potentially be there, but we still need more. These salary slots help keep a franchise competitive.

I'll be honest, that's why potential offers like New York, Toronto, Atlanta and Portland are potentially more intriguing to me, even though the bigger names are certainly lacking. Those mid-level salaries are a big part of what brought our franchise from perennial doormat to playoff contention. Guys like Anderson and Prince this year for us, Huerter and Monk for Sacramento, Gordon and Caldwell-Pope for Denver. Look how depleting your roster of this level of contract/player affected teams like Phoenix (Bridges, Johnson) and Dallas (Finney-Smith, Dinwiddie) during the season and even helped a team like the Lakers make a late-season run..