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

[Dewey]

KAT is likely looking at guys like Durant … hitch your horses up to accept being a #2 or #3 on playoff team (GS) to get a championship …

I don’t see the Wolves paying him $50 bones … wolves need a long term PG solution and depth - simply cannot afford to pay a #2 or #3 guy that big money

[shangrila]

I mentioned elsewhere that KAT isn’t an alpha guy, but most years he had to be team leader because there weren’t other choices (Can you imagine Wiggins as team leader?!?). The media praises him because he has always gone and done full press sessions after so many losses, even though he clearly has put his foot in his mouth many times, and gotten roasted nationally for it.

But he seems to do so much better when someone else steps up to be the focus of the team, whether that was the year with Jimmy (even though Jimmy gets the credit, Towns played far far better), or last year’s fun team. The media focused on Ant, and PatBev loves to talk, but KAT was the best player last year as well.

The good news for us is that Ant looks like he can be the alpha on the court, and the media loves him. KAT could be one of the best #2’s in the whole NBA, and I think that role suits him better as well.

So why are we about to pay him as if he’s not only the best player on the team but one of the best in the entire NBA?

[shrink]

I mentioned elsewhere that KAT isn’t an alpha guy, but most years he had to be team leader because there weren’t other choices (Can you imagine Wiggins as team leader?!?). The media praises him because he has always gone and done full press sessions after so many losses, even though he clearly has put his foot in his mouth many times, and gotten roasted nationally for it.

But he seems to do so much better when someone else steps up to be the focus of the team, whether that was the year with Jimmy (even though Jimmy gets the credit, Towns played far far better), or last year’s fun team. The media focused on Ant, and PatBev loves to talk, but KAT was the best player last year as well.

The good news for us is that Ant looks like he can be the alpha on the court, and the media loves him. KAT could be one of the best #2’s in the whole NBA, and I think that role suits him better as well.

So why are we about to pay him as if he’s not only the best player on the team but one of the best in the entire NBA?

You realize this “supermax is only for the best in the entire NBA”is your own economic line in the sand, right? Just because you wouldn’t pay it certainly didn’t mean Tim Connolly, an actual GM, wasn’t happy to snap it up immediately.

Also, I hope you understand “not being an alpha” does not equal “not being productive.” When Cassell was here, he was the alpha, and KG liked it that way.

[shangrila]

I mentioned elsewhere that KAT isn’t an alpha guy, but most years he had to be team leader because there weren’t other choices (Can you imagine Wiggins as team leader?!?). The media praises him because he has always gone and done full press sessions after so many losses, even though he clearly has put his foot in his mouth many times, and gotten roasted nationally for it.

But he seems to do so much better when someone else steps up to be the focus of the team, whether that was the year with Jimmy (even though Jimmy gets the credit, Towns played far far better), or last year’s fun team. The media focused on Ant, and PatBev loves to talk, but KAT was the best player last year as well.

The good news for us is that Ant looks like he can be the alpha on the court, and the media loves him. KAT could be one of the best #2’s in the whole NBA, and I think that role suits him better as well.

So why are we about to pay him as if he’s not only the best player on the team but one of the best in the entire NBA?

You realize this “supermax is only for the best in the entire NBA”is your own economic line in the sand, right? Just because you wouldn’t pay it certainly didn’t mean Tim Connolly, an actual GM, wasn’t happy to snap it up immediately.

Also, I hope you understand “not being an alpha” does not equal “not being productive.” When Cassell was here, he was the alpha, and KG liked it that way.

Actually, no. Per your own earlier comment, qualifying for the supermax is objectively measureable. I'm not going to list it again but part of it is being voted All NBA in recent seasons. That would, objectively, label you as one of the 15 best players in the entire NBA (for that season at least). So mathematically the top 3%. Even if you stretched it out and had 15 different players each year for 3 years (IIRC that's the cut-off for the supermax?) you're talking about 45 players so the top 10%, assuming a fully rostered NBA and excluding 2-ways.

Now we all know that isn't how it actually worked given the league's archaic insistence on including positions. In reality it was the best 6 guards, best 6 forwards and best 3 centres. I'd argue at this point that it's widely agreed that the top3 Cs were actually a 2-way race between Jokic and Embiid with 3rd place largely being an afterthought but even if you wanted to argue against that, you'd have to admit that objectively Towns has only made All-NBA twice in his 8 year career, both 3rd team and nearly 5 years apart. He is not a consistent All NBA player, objectively.

I do enjoy the implication that my opinion is invalid because an actual GM did something that I disagree with. It's especially ironic given how against acquiring D'Angelo Russell you were. Shouldn't you have just accepted Rosas' decision? Given he was an actual GM.

And while Garnett struggling to close games was a disappointment at times, the fact that he brought so much else to the table made up for it. I know you'll claim you didn't compare them but realistically you brought him up so...yeah, it's fair to bring up that KG had spent most of his career on either or both of the 1st and 2nd All NBA and All Defensive teams at the same age that KAT is now, while actually winning the MVP in his age 27 season. KAT is far closer to Love than KG.

I'd also disagree about KG not being the "alpha" (just typing that makes me cringe). He was the unquestioned locker room leader both here and in Boston. Being a leader and being a closer can be different. KAT, from what I can see, is neither.

Finally, I find it ironic you bring up KG in a discussion about financials, given that we broke the NBA when we gave him a contract at one point.

[Battletrigger]

Read on Twitter

Second round!

[shrink]

So why are we about to pay him as if he’s not only the best player on the team but one of the best in the entire NBA?

You realize this “supermax is only for the best in the entire NBA”is your own economic line in the sand, right? Just because you wouldn’t pay it certainly didn’t mean Tim Connolly, an actual GM, wasn’t happy to snap it up immediately.

Also, I hope you understand “not being an alpha” does not equal “not being productive.” When Cassell was here, he was the alpha, and KG liked it that way.

Actually, no. Per your own earlier comment, qualifying for the supermax is objectively measureable. I'm not going to list it again but part of it is being voted All NBA in recent seasons. That would, objectively, label you as one of the 15 best players in the entire NBA (for that season at least). So mathematically the top 3%. Even if you stretched it out and had 15 different players each year for 3 years (IIRC that's the cut-off for the supermax?) you're talking about 45 players so the top 10%, assuming a fully rostered NBA and excluding 2-ways.

Now we all know that isn't how it actually worked given the league's archaic insistence on including positions. In reality it was the best 6 guards, best 6 forwards and best 3 centres. I'd argue at this point that it's widely agreed that the top3 Cs were actually a 2-way race between Jokic and Embiid with 3rd place largely being an afterthought but even if you wanted to argue against that, you'd have to admit that objectively Towns has only made All-NBA twice in his 8 year career, both 3rd team and nearly 5 years apart. He is not a consistent All NBA player, objectively.

I do enjoy the implication that my opinion is invalid because an actual GM did something that I disagree with. It's especially ironic given how against acquiring D'Angelo Russell you were. Shouldn't you have just accepted Rosas' decision? Given he was an actual GM.

And while Garnett struggling to close games was a disappointment at times, the fact that he brought so much else to the table made up for it. I know you'll claim you didn't compare them but realistically you brought him up so...yeah, it's fair to bring up that KG had spent most of his career on either or both of the 1st and 2nd All NBA and All Defensive teams at the same age that KAT is now, while actually winning the MVP in his age 27 season. KAT is far closer to Love than KG.

I'd also disagree about KG not being the "alpha" (just typing that makes me cringe). He was the unquestioned locker room leader both here and in Boston. Being a leader and being a closer can be different. KAT, from what I can see, is neither.

Finally, I find it ironic you bring up KG in a discussion about financials, given that we broke the NBA when we gave him a contract at one point.

KG never wanted to be an alpha in MIN. Maybe it’s because he started 5 years younger than any of his teammates, but he always blanched at being a star. He wanted tv appearances to be with he, Cassell and Spree, and always talked about them as a unit, not as himself as an alpha. I think he took more of a leadership role in BOS, but even then, Pierce had that role - perhaps because he had been there so long. But yeah, when Garnett got that first giant MIN contract, he was the Wolves best player but he was also 21 years old, and no alpha.

Should we use Pippen instead? He clearly wasn’t an alpha as long an Michael Jordan was there, but he was still named a Top 75 player of all time, and well worth whatever contract he signed. You don’t need to be an alpha to be productive and worth your contract.

[younggunsmn]

KG never wanted to be an alpha in MIN. Maybe it’s because he started 5 years younger than any of his teammates, but he always blanched at being a star. He wanted tv appearances to be with he, Cassell and Spree, and always talked about them as a unit, not as himself as an alpha. I think he took more of a leadership role in BOS, but even then, Pierce had that role - perhaps because he had been there so long. But yeah, when Garnett got that first giant MIN contract, he was the Wolves best player but he was also 21 years old, and no alpha.

Should we use Pippen instead? He clearly wasn’t an alpha as long an Michael Jordan was there, but he was still named a Top 75 player of all time, and well worth whatever contract he signed. You don’t need to be an alpha to be productive and worth your contract.

I guess it depends on how you define alpha.
For me there are 2 criteria:
1. Being the best player on your team/playing at a very high level on both ends of the floor
2. Being the guy who ALWAYS knows what is going on, where to be, and being able to direct/correct your teammates.

KG was clearly the best player on both ends of the floor here from his 2nd year onward, and he is the ultimate example of number 2.
If you just define alpha by scoring ability? The only way KAT ever comes close.

He's been the weak link on defense for most of his career, and he's still they guy who needs to be directed by his teammates on defense (and often on offense too). Masking his shortcomings is the primary reason Connelly paid a fortune to add Rudy Gobert.
Point one is why KAT or Rudy will never truly be an alpha.

Ant made tremendous strides defensively and in awareness this year and is very close to becoming a true alpha by my criteria.

Supermax guys in my opinion should be 2-way players, but that's not how the economics/free agent market works and I don't like the rule/criteria.
Supermax should only be available to players during their primes, say age 27-32 seasons.
Add that to all-NBA criteria. That would be a better rule. Would change nothing for KAT though.
KAT making that all-NBA team is going to have an outsized impact on the future of this franchise.
Totally different trade value max vs supermax, and even if we keep him that extra salary costs us a top-9 rotation player.

But what was our actual choice? Low-ball him and let him leave? Maxes (and even supermaxes) go to top-2/3 guys on their teams these days, top 40/50 players, because they'll get it in free agency anyway.

KAT being on a supermax is still a lot better than mediocre guys like DeAngelo Russell making max money.

[urinesane]

I mentioned elsewhere that KAT isn’t an alpha guy, but most years he had to be team leader because there weren’t other choices (Can you imagine Wiggins as team leader?!?). The media praises him because he has always gone and done full press sessions after so many losses, even though he clearly has put his foot in his mouth many times, and gotten roasted nationally for it.

But he seems to do so much better when someone else steps up to be the focus of the team, whether that was the year with Jimmy (even though Jimmy gets the credit, Towns played far far better), or last year’s fun team. The media focused on Ant, and PatBev loves to talk, but KAT was the best player last year as well.

The good news for us is that Ant looks like he can be the alpha on the court, and the media loves him. KAT could be one of the best #2’s in the whole NBA, and I think that role suits him better as well.

So why are we about to pay him as if he’s not only the best player on the team but one of the best in the entire NBA?

When he signed it, he was the best player on the team.

[urinesane]

KG never wanted to be an alpha in MIN. Maybe it’s because he started 5 years younger than any of his teammates, but he always blanched at being a star. He wanted tv appearances to be with he, Cassell and Spree, and always talked about them as a unit, not as himself as an alpha. I think he took more of a leadership role in BOS, but even then, Pierce had that role - perhaps because he had been there so long. But yeah, when Garnett got that first giant MIN contract, he was the Wolves best player but he was also 21 years old, and no alpha.

Should we use Pippen instead? He clearly wasn’t an alpha as long an Michael Jordan was there, but he was still named a Top 75 player of all time, and well worth whatever contract he signed. You don’t need to be an alpha to be productive and worth your contract.

He's been a weak link on defense for most of his career, and he's still they guy who needs to be directed by his teammates on defense (and often on offense too). Masking his shortcomings is the primary reason Connelly paid a fortune to add Rudy Gobert.
Point one is why KAT or Rudy will never truly be an alpha.

Please show me the Wolves rosters that had KAT as the weak link on defense, but somehow were good defensively without him.

It's not his strength, but he's also not terrible (and actually tries on that end, whereas many offensive first players don't even give effort). He certainly isn't like DLo where you basically play 4 on 5 on defense.

[TheZachAttack]

KG never wanted to be an alpha in MIN. Maybe it’s because he started 5 years younger than any of his teammates, but he always blanched at being a star. He wanted tv appearances to be with he, Cassell and Spree, and always talked about them as a unit, not as himself as an alpha. I think he took more of a leadership role in BOS, but even then, Pierce had that role - perhaps because he had been there so long. But yeah, when Garnett got that first giant MIN contract, he was the Wolves best player but he was also 21 years old, and no alpha.

Should we use Pippen instead? He clearly wasn’t an alpha as long an Michael Jordan was there, but he was still named a Top 75 player of all time, and well worth whatever contract he signed. You don’t need to be an alpha to be productive and worth your contract.

He's been a weak link on defense for most of his career, and he's still they guy who needs to be directed by his teammates on defense (and often on offense too). Masking his shortcomings is the primary reason Connelly paid a fortune to add Rudy Gobert.
Point one is why KAT or Rudy will never truly be an alpha.

Please show me the Wolves rosters that had KAT as the weak link on defense, but somehow were good defensively without him.

It's not his strength, but he's also not terrible (and actually tries on that end, whereas many offensive first players don't even give effort). He certainly isn't like DLo where you basically play 4 on 5 on defense.

Some of the Gorgui Dieng teams had splits like this, but for me I don't really put stock into defensive performances by bad teams. Those teams would usually start the season surprisingly well defensively and/or play really well defensively for like 3 weeks after a coaching change. I don't really care that those Wolves teams and KAT weren't great defensively in game 63 of the regular season when they were 30 games out of the playoffs.

I actually think as a 5, especially in a level defense, is probably average/above-average now rather than a negative. He's not an asset, but he's capable of being a piece in an above average defense. The sort of problems are (1) the easiest path/many good defenses are built around a rim anchor (2) playing good defense and being involved in that many actions defensively as a center lead to picking up fouls.

KAT has a trouble with fouls and even more of a trouble playing offensively when he's in foul trouble. To me, that was most of the calculus of trying to get Rudy. Can you find someone that can do the "big" things for KAT to keep him out of foul trouble and focused on offense. I'm not saying it worked as well as they planned, but to me that's where the back and forth on KAT is in regards to the defensive end.

[urinesane]

He's been a weak link on defense for most of his career, and he's still they guy who needs to be directed by his teammates on defense (and often on offense too). Masking his shortcomings is the primary reason Connelly paid a fortune to add Rudy Gobert.
Point one is why KAT or Rudy will never truly be an alpha.

Please show me the Wolves rosters that had KAT as the weak link on defense, but somehow were good defensively without him.

It's not his strength, but he's also not terrible (and actually tries on that end, whereas many offensive first players don't even give effort). He certainly isn't like DLo where you basically play 4 on 5 on defense.

Some of the Gorgui Dieng teams had splits like this, but for me I don't really put stock into defensive performances by bad teams. Those teams would usually start the season surprisingly well defensively and/or play really well defensively for like 3 weeks after a coaching change. I don't really care that those Wolves teams and KAT weren't great defensively in game 63 of the regular season when they were 30 games out of the playoffs.

I actually think as a 5, especially in a level defense, is probably average/above-average now rather than a negative. He's not an asset, but he's capable of being a piece in an above average defense. The sort of problems are (1) the easiest path/many good defenses are built around a rim anchor (2) playing good defense and being involved in that many actions defensively as a center lead to picking up fouls.

KAT has a trouble with fouls and even more of a trouble playing offensively when he's in foul trouble. To me, that was most of the calculus of trying to get Rudy. Can you find someone that can do the "big" things for KAT to keep him out of foul trouble and focused on offense. I'm not saying it worked as well as they planned, but to me that's where the back and forth on KAT is in regards to the defensive end.

Anyone that watched Gorgui play without selective memory knows that he isn't a good defender. He would constantly take bad angles and then try to make up for it with a block (that was rarely successful) which would either create an easy basket, or an easy putback due to being out of position to rebound.

I think you're right. When it comes to KAT he's not going to anchor a defense or improve it drastically, but he also will not be a huge negative. He's a massive positive on offense and probably break even or somewhere slightly on either side of that depending on the matchup. Which overall means for the team he's a massive positive (and his willingness to adapt and sacrifice his personal game for the betterment of his teammates is incredibly overlooked/underrated).

[shangrila]

You realize this “supermax is only for the best in the entire NBA”is your own economic line in the sand, right? Just because you wouldn’t pay it certainly didn’t mean Tim Connolly, an actual GM, wasn’t happy to snap it up immediately.

Also, I hope you understand “not being an alpha” does not equal “not being productive.” When Cassell was here, he was the alpha, and KG liked it that way.

Actually, no. Per your own earlier comment, qualifying for the supermax is objectively measureable. I'm not going to list it again but part of it is being voted All NBA in recent seasons. That would, objectively, label you as one of the 15 best players in the entire NBA (for that season at least). So mathematically the top 3%. Even if you stretched it out and had 15 different players each year for 3 years (IIRC that's the cut-off for the supermax?) you're talking about 45 players so the top 10%, assuming a fully rostered NBA and excluding 2-ways.

Now we all know that isn't how it actually worked given the league's archaic insistence on including positions. In reality it was the best 6 guards, best 6 forwards and best 3 centres. I'd argue at this point that it's widely agreed that the top3 Cs were actually a 2-way race between Jokic and Embiid with 3rd place largely being an afterthought but even if you wanted to argue against that, you'd have to admit that objectively Towns has only made All-NBA twice in his 8 year career, both 3rd team and nearly 5 years apart. He is not a consistent All NBA player, objectively.

I do enjoy the implication that my opinion is invalid because an actual GM did something that I disagree with. It's especially ironic given how against acquiring D'Angelo Russell you were. Shouldn't you have just accepted Rosas' decision? Given he was an actual GM.

And while Garnett struggling to close games was a disappointment at times, the fact that he brought so much else to the table made up for it. I know you'll claim you didn't compare them but realistically you brought him up so...yeah, it's fair to bring up that KG had spent most of his career on either or both of the 1st and 2nd All NBA and All Defensive teams at the same age that KAT is now, while actually winning the MVP in his age 27 season. KAT is far closer to Love than KG.

I'd also disagree about KG not being the "alpha" (just typing that makes me cringe). He was the unquestioned locker room leader both here and in Boston. Being a leader and being a closer can be different. KAT, from what I can see, is neither.

Finally, I find it ironic you bring up KG in a discussion about financials, given that we broke the NBA when we gave him a contract at one point.

KG never wanted to be an alpha in MIN. Maybe it’s because he started 5 years younger than any of his teammates, but he always blanched at being a star. He wanted tv appearances to be with he, Cassell and Spree, and always talked about them as a unit, not as himself as an alpha. I think he took more of a leadership role in BOS, but even then, Pierce had that role - perhaps because he had been there so long. But yeah, when Garnett got that first giant MIN contract, he was the Wolves best player but he was also 21 years old, and no alpha.

Should we use Pippen instead? He clearly wasn’t an alpha as long an Michael Jordan was there, but he was still named a Top 75 player of all time, and well worth whatever contract he signed. You don’t need to be an alpha to be productive and worth your contract.

Are you sure you want to use Pippen? It's my understanding he spent most of his career significantly underpaid, even relative to his time. If my argument is that KAT is overpaid Pippen would be your worst counter argument.

I also never stated KAT can't be productive. There is, however, a huge difference between being productive and being worth your contract. So for arguments sake let me ask you; what level of production do you expect from a supermax player? You can use your bare minimum if you like

[Mattya]

Gorgui jumped at fakes all the time because he believed he could recover for the block, which he couldn’t do enough to make up for it. He cause deflections in the pick and roll, but how much of that was attributed to him just kicking the ball out of bounds.

[shangrila]

I mentioned elsewhere that KAT isn’t an alpha guy, but most years he had to be team leader because there weren’t other choices (Can you imagine Wiggins as team leader?!?). The media praises him because he has always gone and done full press sessions after so many losses, even though he clearly has put his foot in his mouth many times, and gotten roasted nationally for it.

But he seems to do so much better when someone else steps up to be the focus of the team, whether that was the year with Jimmy (even though Jimmy gets the credit, Towns played far far better), or last year’s fun team. The media focused on Ant, and PatBev loves to talk, but KAT was the best player last year as well.

The good news for us is that Ant looks like he can be the alpha on the court, and the media loves him. KAT could be one of the best #2’s in the whole NBA, and I think that role suits him better as well.

So why are we about to pay him as if he’s not only the best player on the team but one of the best in the entire NBA?

When he signed it, he was the best player on the team.

That says more about the team than Towns.

[frankenwolf]

I also never stated KAT can't be productive. There is, however, a huge difference between being productive and being worth your contract. So for arguments sake let me ask you; what level of production do you expect from a supermax player? You can use your bare minimum if you like

Let's take a look at who is worth their contract, looking at the most expensive contracts based on average annual value:
1) Dame 60,887,020
2) Devon Booker 56,056,000
3) KAT 56,056,000
4) Jokic 54,404,000
5) Steph 53,838,416
6) Embiid 53,528,000
7) Beal 50,203,930
8) Jimmy Buckets 48,798,677
9) LeBron 48,566,687
10) KD 48,554,830

I'm not sure how you want to analyze these, but only 4 have been a part of a championship team and only one more has been in the finals. We have to go to #4 before we find an NBA Champion.

So, what makes a player "worth" their contract? IMO, at this time, only Jokic is really worth it. I don't object to paying Steph and Lebron what they are currently making, because I think they were underpaid at their peak.

Looking forward to the discussion.

[shrink]

So, what makes a player "worth" their contract? IMO, at this time, only Jokic is really worth it. I don't object to paying Steph and Lebron what they are currently making, because I think they were underpaid at their peak.

Looking forward to the discussion.

I don’t want to get too long-winded again on this subject (I’ll pop in later), so I’ll tell you a story.

When I first came to RealGM, a long long time ago, I decided I’d come up with a mathematical formula to determine what a fair salary was. I built a spreadsheet, downloaded production data, tried to make correlations with current salaries. I was curious if GMs paid you more for a rebound than an assist. I was curious how far above average you needed to be to really get paid. I wanted to remove my personal bias of who was overpaid and underpaid, by looking at the question mathematically.

So I put a couple weeks into the venture, and the result? Failure.

I was asking the wrong question. Players are paid for so much more than production. At its heart, the NBA is an entertainment industry, selling tickets by putting on a reality show. Yes, production and team winning is more entertaining than the alternative, but people follow the nba for more than that. It’s why we are still fans of this particular franchise.

Let me put it this way. In six months, the Trade Board will have us vote on which player has the most trade value. Almost everyone is going to vote for Jokic, and I will probably be the only one saying it’s LeBron James. At 38, LeBron is nowhere near as productive as Jokic, nor is he more likely to win his team a ring. But LeBron is known worldwide, and he brings that attention to the Lakers. He is a marketing bonanza all by himself. He demonstrates to all the young stars for the next 20 years, that the Lakers is the franchise to go to, to have your name in NBA history.

So yeah, we can talk about the amount of money in the nba, the exponential value of production better than the norm, the restrictions of the CBA and all that. But keep in mind, contracts are more than production.

[Calinks]

I think its really silly to try and say the team shouldn't have signed KAT to a max deal. Players of a certain level get max deals, that's how it works. We gave Wiggins a max deal and he was not producing at KAT's level. Are they worth it? Yes, that's the market. Not all max deals are equal, a max for Towns and a max for prime Lebron is not the same, LeBron is being had at a huge discount relative to his talent, but again, that's how the NBA works.

KAT is absolutely a max player. Top 5 (generally top 3), best at his position in 75 percent of his games, among league leaders in points and rebounds. Yea, that's a max player. Now the new CBA has hurt the value of that deal and KAT of course, has his flaws but so do most max guys.

In any given season, the NBA has like 3-5 absolutely elite mega stars and then maybe 10-15 more superstar-caliber guys. All of those guys are getting max or near-max deals. There is no scenario where Towns was not going to get a max contract when he did. If we refused it, he would have had to force a trade and get a max from someone else and it would have been foolish for us to do that considering his talent and contributions to this franchise.

[Baseline81]

I also never stated KAT can't be productive. There is, however, a huge difference between being productive and being worth your contract. So for arguments sake let me ask you; what level of production do you expect from a supermax player? You can use your bare minimum if you like

Let's take a look at who is worth their contract, looking at the most expensive contracts based on average annual value:
1) Dame 60,887,020
2) Devon Booker 56,056,000
3) KAT 56,056,000
4) Jokic 54,404,000
5) Steph 53,838,416
6) Embiid 53,528,000
7) Beal 50,203,930
8) Jimmy Buckets 48,798,677
9) LeBron 48,566,687
10) KD 48,554,830

I'm not sure how you want to analyze these, but only 4 have been a part of a championship team and only one more has been in the finals. We have to go to #4 before we find an NBA Champion.

So, what makes a player "worth" their contract? IMO, at this time, only Jokic is really worth it. I don't object to paying Steph and Lebron what they are currently making, because I think they were underpaid at their peak.

Looking forward to the discussion.

Those I have underlined have proven themselves in the regular season and playoffs -- helping their teams past the first round. Other than showing loyalty, what has Towns and Beal done to deserve those contracts? Yes, I understand they have been all-stars, however, there are levels to this.

[urinesane]

So why are we about to pay him as if he’s not only the best player on the team but one of the best in the entire NBA?

When he signed it, he was the best player on the team.

That says more about the team than Towns.

Exactly, which goes back to the point that teams pay their players based on how they perform for their franchise. Not necessarily how others are performing for other franchises. Specifically when it comes to offering a max contract, it usually comes down to trying to keep your best talent. It doesn't mean that the player is an alpha star that can drag a roster full of G leaguers to the playoffs.

It's sort of like when people say a team had a soft schedule etc, the team can only play the teams they play. KAT can only be the best player on his team, it's not his fault if the franchise hasn't surrounded him with the right players.

[Klomp]

I also never stated KAT can't be productive. There is, however, a huge difference between being productive and being worth your contract. So for arguments sake let me ask you; what level of production do you expect from a supermax player? You can use your bare minimum if you like

Let's take a look at who is worth their contract, looking at the most expensive contracts based on average annual value:
1) Dame 60,887,020
2) Devon Booker 56,056,000
3) KAT 56,056,000
4) Jokic 54,404,000
5) Steph 53,838,416
6) Embiid 53,528,000
7) Beal 50,203,930
8) Jimmy Buckets 48,798,677
9) LeBron 48,566,687
10) KD 48,554,830

I'm not sure how you want to analyze these, but only 4 have been a part of a championship team and only one more has been in the finals. We have to go to #4 before we find an NBA Champion.

So, what makes a player "worth" their contract? IMO, at this time, only Jokic is really worth it. I don't object to paying Steph and Lebron what they are currently making, because I think they were underpaid at their peak.

Looking forward to the discussion.

Those I have underlined have proven themselves in the regular season and playoffs -- helping their teams past the first round. Other than showing loyalty, what has Towns and Beal done to deserve those contracts? Yes, I understand they have been all-stars, however, there are levels to this.

If you want to play that game, Beal has helped the Wizards past the first round too....three times in fact. He wasn't the best player on any of those teams (those were the good Wall years), but that's how he got paid.

For smaller-market franchises, you have to weigh the actual results along with previous success and expectations. Towns being one of the on-court leaders for two playoff teams is significant for a laughingstock Timberwolves franchise. That's a big part of how he earned that contract, not to mention being one of just 5 Timberwolves individuals to earn all-NBA (and just the third to be all-NBA multiple times).