Masai Was Saved From Himself - All 3 of the Siakam/OG/Fred Trio are Overpaid Right Now

[WaltFrazier]

Pacers are 8-2 in last 10, 5th place and rising.

And 5th in the East. Half game back of 4th, 3 games back of the Knicks for 3rd. Aside from the Cavs, it should be competitive for seeding down the stretch.

Pascal's doing fine, but I said it even before the Pascal trade - the Pacers aren't that good. I pegged them as the biggest regression candidates this season - their shooting and pace was just not sustainable. Reminded me of the SAC team from a couple years ago. They're a fairly deep team with some obviously talented pieces, but they do not have a #1. They have a couple #2/3s and some decent role players who they need to consolidate into a star. Mathurin is nice, and young, but I don't think he's a great fit with Siakam there. He would be a very nice centrepiece in a star trade. And honestly, I'd be open to moving Hali too.

How many teams have a #1 better than Pascal and Hali? If you can't get one of the few superstar #1's then isn't two #2s the next best thing? I know Pacers are paying those two a huge chunk of their cap, which is a separate question. But just in general if you can't have prime Kawhi or Luka or KD then you have to try build a deep team with balanced scoring.

[Tripod]

And 5th in the East. Half game back of 4th, 3 games back of the Knicks for 3rd. Aside from the Cavs, it should be competitive for seeding down the stretch.

Pascal's doing fine, but I said it even before the Pascal trade - the Pacers aren't that good. I pegged them as the biggest regression candidates this season - their shooting and pace was just not sustainable. Reminded me of the SAC team from a couple years ago. They're a fairly deep team with some obviously talented pieces, but they do not have a #1. They have a couple #2/3s and some decent role players who they need to consolidate into a star. Mathurin is nice, and young, but I don't think he's a great fit with Siakam there. He would be a very nice centrepiece in a star trade. And honestly, I'd be open to moving Hali too.

How many teams have a #1 better than Pascal and Hali? If you can't get one of the few superstar #1's then isn't two #2s the next best thing? I know Pacers are paying those two a huge chunk of their cap, which is a separate question. But just in general if you can't have prime Kawhi or Luka or KD then you have to try build a deep team with balanced scoring.

And just because they don't have it now, doesn't mean they can't have one in the future.

[WaltFrazier]

Pascal's doing fine, but I said it even before the Pascal trade - the Pacers aren't that good. I pegged them as the biggest regression candidates this season - their shooting and pace was just not sustainable. Reminded me of the SAC team from a couple years ago. They're a fairly deep team with some obviously talented pieces, but they do not have a #1. They have a couple #2/3s and some decent role players who they need to consolidate into a star. Mathurin is nice, and young, but I don't think he's a great fit with Siakam there. He would be a very nice centrepiece in a star trade. And honestly, I'd be open to moving Hali too.

How many teams have a #1 better than Pascal and Hali? If you can't get one of the few superstar #1's then isn't two #2s the next best thing? I know Pacers are paying those two a huge chunk of their cap, which is a separate question. But just in general if you can't have prime Kawhi or Luka or KD then you have to try build a deep team with balanced scoring.

And just because they don't have it now, doesn't mean they can't have one in the future.

Yes although it'd be hard to have room for a superstar given Pascal and Hali's combined salaries.

[Tripod]

How many teams have a #1 better than Pascal and Hali? If you can't get one of the few superstar #1's then isn't two #2s the next best thing? I know Pacers are paying those two a huge chunk of their cap, which is a separate question. But just in general if you can't have prime Kawhi or Luka or KD then you have to try build a deep team with balanced scoring.

And just because they don't have it now, doesn't mean they can't have one in the future.

Yes although it'd be hard to have room for a superstar given Pascal and Hali's combined salaries.

Not if 1 is moved as part of the deal like we did DD

[ontnut]

And just because they don't have it now, doesn't mean they can't have one in the future.

Yes although it'd be hard to have room for a superstar given Pascal and Hali's combined salaries.

Not if 1 is moved as part of the deal like we did DD

That's IND's problem though, always has been. They build so conservatively that this probably isn't going to happen. They never tank, and they never go all-in. They get 2nd tier stars and then think it's good enough (PG13, Hibbert, Lance, Hill) to beat teams with superstars.

Pascal and Hali are in that weird place where they're being paid the max, but they're not really outperforming their contract like top superstars do, and they're not necessarily underperforming it either. From IND's perspective, they're not signing anyone better with that money, and their contracts are "good deals" for IND. At this stage, who can they really trade them for that doesn't create another hole? They're not as 2-way deep as the Raps were before the Kawhi trade. Turner, Mathurin, Nembhard, Nesmith, Toppin...All kinda fine players, but they're not scaring many teams in the playoffs. Their run to the ECF was littered with broken teams.

Now if they did something like trade Turner, Mathurin and all their picks for Embiid...that could be an actually interesting move for both sides. That's the kind of move they'd need to make to really become a contender and not just a 45 win team that wins a series, maybe 2. I don't know who else they could get that would fit well with Hali and Siakam.

We know that Pascal can't carry an offense in the playoffs by himself, and relying on comes-and-goes 3pt shooting from Hali and the "others" just isn't going to cut it. Hali is like Nash in that while he's a solid player in his own right, he needs a finisher/lob threat to really help him shine to his max potential.

[ontnut]

And 5th in the East. Half game back of 4th, 3 games back of the Knicks for 3rd. Aside from the Cavs, it should be competitive for seeding down the stretch.

Pascal's doing fine, but I said it even before the Pascal trade - the Pacers aren't that good. I pegged them as the biggest regression candidates this season - their shooting and pace was just not sustainable. Reminded me of the SAC team from a couple years ago. They're a fairly deep team with some obviously talented pieces, but they do not have a #1. They have a couple #2/3s and some decent role players who they need to consolidate into a star. Mathurin is nice, and young, but I don't think he's a great fit with Siakam there. He would be a very nice centrepiece in a star trade. And honestly, I'd be open to moving Hali too.

I wonder what Halis value would even be right now, supermax contract, injuries out the wazoo, and generally underperforming. I can't imagine it would be that high.

PG trade candidate list - would their teams trade them for Hali?
Clear hang up: Shai, Doncic, Brunson, Curry, Kyrie, Ja, Cade
We'll listen but it's a NO unless you're sending picks: Fox, Trae
We might consider a trade: Lillard, Garland, Murray - I'm honestly not sure about Lillard - MIL might rather have a younger Hali, but for a championship run I'd prob rather have Lillard. Garland's also having a heck of a season, I debated bumping him up a cat tbh.
We'd accept a deal and send a pick: FVV, Holiday, White

So there's 9 PG's I wouldn't trade him straight up for. Then 3 that are kind of in that same tier, and 3 PG's just below where you probably wouldn't make a deal for the sake of it. That's 14 teams (cuz BOS has 2) that probably doesn't view Hali as a value-add.

It's crazy that 1 year later, Hali might not be a top 10 PG right now. He's still quite young at 25 years old, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on health - he played 69 games last year and hasn't missed one this year so far. He could have a Curry-like injury trajectory (lots early, then, not too much later). What would a team pay for the 10th best PG on a max contract? Tough to say - depends on the team. I think the Spurs would LOVE him beside Wemby - that's a match made in heaven. But I don't see too many "contenders" needing a PG like him at this stage other than maybe the Wolves or Clippers? I'm guessing he'd still get a deal like a Randle + 4 picks (if they had them), but honestly other than the Spurs...who really needs Hali and has the assets to trade for him?

[Scase]

Pascal's doing fine, but I said it even before the Pascal trade - the Pacers aren't that good. I pegged them as the biggest regression candidates this season - their shooting and pace was just not sustainable. Reminded me of the SAC team from a couple years ago. They're a fairly deep team with some obviously talented pieces, but they do not have a #1. They have a couple #2/3s and some decent role players who they need to consolidate into a star. Mathurin is nice, and young, but I don't think he's a great fit with Siakam there. He would be a very nice centrepiece in a star trade. And honestly, I'd be open to moving Hali too.

I wonder what Halis value would even be right now, supermax contract, injuries out the wazoo, and generally underperforming. I can't imagine it would be that high.

PG trade candidate list - would their teams trade them for Hali?
Clear hang up: Shai, Doncic, Brunson, Curry, Kyrie, Ja, Cade
We'll listen but it's a NO unless you're sending picks: Fox, Trae
We might consider a trade: Lillard, Garland, Murray - I'm honestly not sure about Lillard - MIL might rather have a younger Hali, but for a championship run I'd prob rather have Lillard. Garland's also having a heck of a season, I debated bumping him up a cat tbh.
We'd accept a deal and send a pick: FVV, Holiday, White

So there's 9 PG's I wouldn't trade him straight up for. Then 3 that are kind of in that same tier, and 3 PG's just below where you probably wouldn't make a deal for the sake of it. That's 14 teams (cuz BOS has 2) that probably doesn't view Hali as a value-add.

It's crazy that 1 year later, Hali might not be a top 10 PG right now. He's still quite young at 25 years old, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on health - he played 69 games last year and hasn't missed one this year so far. He could have a Curry-like injury trajectory (lots early, then, not too much later). What would a team pay for the 10th best PG on a max contract? Tough to say - depends on the team. I think the Spurs would LOVE him beside Wemby - that's a match made in heaven. But I don't see too many "contenders" needing a PG like him at this stage other than maybe the Wolves or Clippers? I'm guessing he'd still get a deal like a Randle + 4 picks (if they had them), but honestly other than the Spurs...who really needs Hali and has the assets to trade for him?

That's pretty much my initial assessment as well, Lillard for Hali would be interesting, but I don't think there is a chance that CLE would move Garland with just how well that team is playing. Garland specifically I agree wouldn't make sense explicitly in the tier above, but from a team fit and performance he's there long term I bet.

Murray would be interesting, but I don't see how Hali would fit with Jokic who needs to/should absolutely be the primary ball handler.

There just doesn't seem to be any real obvious situations where there'd be a team with the assets or a reason to acquire him. Add in that he's on a supermax instead of a regular max, and man, IND is going to just have to find a way to make it work and move other pieces. I don't think Siakam/Hali are going anywhere any time soon, that explains why we are still hearing talks about Turner.

[brownbobcat]

It's crazy that 1 year later, Hali might not be a top 10 PG right now. He's still quite young at 25 years old, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on health - he played 69 games last year and hasn't missed one this year so far. He could have a Curry-like injury trajectory (lots early, then, not too much later). What would a team pay for the 10th best PG on a max contract? Tough to say - depends on the team. I think the Spurs would LOVE him beside Wemby - that's a match made in heaven. But I don't see too many "contenders" needing a PG like him at this stage other than maybe the Wolves or Clippers? I'm guessing he'd still get a deal like a Randle + 4 picks (if they had them), but honestly other than the Spurs...who really needs Hali and has the assets to trade for him?

The reports of Haliburton's death have been greatly exaggerated. He had a rough go after his injury, but looks at his splits.

Oct 14.6/6.6/5.0 TS: 43.8%
Nov 18.5/9.3/2.9 TS: 58.9%
Dec 17.8/8.6/4.0 TS: 61.0%
Jan 19.0/9.5/3.4 TS: 64.5%

Call me crazy, but I'd still bet on Hali over Garland, Fox and Cade.

[Scase]

It's crazy that 1 year later, Hali might not be a top 10 PG right now. He's still quite young at 25 years old, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on health - he played 69 games last year and hasn't missed one this year so far. He could have a Curry-like injury trajectory (lots early, then, not too much later). What would a team pay for the 10th best PG on a max contract? Tough to say - depends on the team. I think the Spurs would LOVE him beside Wemby - that's a match made in heaven. But I don't see too many "contenders" needing a PG like him at this stage other than maybe the Wolves or Clippers? I'm guessing he'd still get a deal like a Randle + 4 picks (if they had them), but honestly other than the Spurs...who really needs Hali and has the assets to trade for him?

The reports of Haliburton's death have been greatly exaggerated. He had a rough go after his injury, but looks at his splits.

Oct 14.6/6.6/5.0 TS: 43.8%
Nov 18.5/9.3/2.9 TS: 58.9%
Dec 17.8/8.6/4.0 TS: 61.0%
Jan 19.0/9.5/3.4 TS: 64.5%

Call me crazy, but I'd still bet on Hali over Garland, Fox and Cade.

Ehhhhh I would suggest taking a look at the teams he's been playing as well. Jan was DET/PHI/GSW/BKN/CHI/PHO/MIA, not exactly strong competition, he missed 1 of 2 CLE games, and the 1 he played in he put up 2/1/5/2 in 18min on 1-5 shooting.

His best games in Dec were against us, NOP, PHI, and a good game against BOS. He's too all over the place IMO, he put up 4, 9, and 8 point games in Dec as well. He seems like he's on the upswing, but I still dont think he's worth a supermax.

[brownbobcat]

It's crazy that 1 year later, Hali might not be a top 10 PG right now. He's still quite young at 25 years old, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on health - he played 69 games last year and hasn't missed one this year so far. He could have a Curry-like injury trajectory (lots early, then, not too much later). What would a team pay for the 10th best PG on a max contract? Tough to say - depends on the team. I think the Spurs would LOVE him beside Wemby - that's a match made in heaven. But I don't see too many "contenders" needing a PG like him at this stage other than maybe the Wolves or Clippers? I'm guessing he'd still get a deal like a Randle + 4 picks (if they had them), but honestly other than the Spurs...who really needs Hali and has the assets to trade for him?

The reports of Haliburton's death have been greatly exaggerated. He had a rough go after his injury, but looks at his splits.

Oct 14.6/6.6/5.0 TS: 43.8%
Nov 18.5/9.3/2.9 TS: 58.9%
Dec 17.8/8.6/4.0 TS: 61.0%
Jan 19.0/9.5/3.4 TS: 64.5%

Call me crazy, but I'd still bet on Hali over Garland, Fox and Cade.

Ehhhhh I would suggest taking a look at the teams he's been playing as well. Jan was DET/PHI/GSW/BKN/CHI/PHO/MIA, not exactly strong competition, he missed 1 of 2 CLE games, and the 1 he played in he put up 2/1/5/2 in 18min on 1-5 shooting.

His best games in Dec were against us, NOP, PHI, and a good game against BOS. He's too all over the place IMO, he put up 4, 9, and 8 point games in Dec as well. He seems like he's on the upswing, but I still dont think he's worth a supermax.

Mehh, everyone has bad games. Put that supermax into perspective, he's getting paid $4M more than Scottie this year - it's a fine contract.

[Scase]

The reports of Haliburton's death have been greatly exaggerated. He had a rough go after his injury, but looks at his splits.

Oct 14.6/6.6/5.0 TS: 43.8%
Nov 18.5/9.3/2.9 TS: 58.9%
Dec 17.8/8.6/4.0 TS: 61.0%
Jan 19.0/9.5/3.4 TS: 64.5%

Call me crazy, but I'd still bet on Hali over Garland, Fox and Cade.

Ehhhhh I would suggest taking a look at the teams he's been playing as well. Jan was DET/PHI/GSW/BKN/CHI/PHO/MIA, not exactly strong competition, he missed 1 of 2 CLE games, and the 1 he played in he put up 2/1/5/2 in 18min on 1-5 shooting.

His best games in Dec were against us, NOP, PHI, and a good game against BOS. He's too all over the place IMO, he put up 4, 9, and 8 point games in Dec as well. He seems like he's on the upswing, but I still dont think he's worth a supermax.

Mehh, everyone has bad games. Put that supermax into perspective, he's getting paid $4M more than Scottie this year - it's a fine contract.

Eh, it's still a significant amount more, Scottie ends up being 25/24.5/24/23/22.5% of the cap, while Hali is 30/29.5/29/28/27%. That's a noticeable amount when you are trying to balance the books, I wouldn't feel comfortable with either of them on supermax contracts, but only one of them is.

[Los_29]

Yes although it'd be hard to have room for a superstar given Pascal and Hali's combined salaries.

Not if 1 is moved as part of the deal like we did DD

That's IND's problem though, always has been. They build so conservatively that this probably isn't going to happen. They never tank, and they never go all-in. They get 2nd tier stars and then think it's good enough (PG13, Hibbert, Lance, Hill) to beat teams with superstars.

Pascal and Hali are in that weird place where they're being paid the max, but they're not really outperforming their contract like top superstars do, and they're not necessarily underperforming it either. From IND's perspective, they're not signing anyone better with that money, and their contracts are "good deals" for IND. At this stage, who can they really trade them for that doesn't create another hole? They're not as 2-way deep as the Raps were before the Kawhi trade. Turner, Mathurin, Nembhard, Nesmith, Toppin...All kinda fine players, but they're not scaring many teams in the playoffs. Their run to the ECF was littered with broken teams.

Now if they did something like trade Turner, Mathurin and all their picks for Embiid...that could be an actually interesting move for both sides. That's the kind of move they'd need to make to really become a contender and not just a 45 win team that wins a series, maybe 2. I don't know who else they could get that would fit well with Hali and Siakam.

We know that Pascal can't carry an offense in the playoffs by himself, and relying on comes-and-goes 3pt shooting from Hali and the "others" just isn't going to cut it. Hali is like Nash in that while he's a solid player in his own right, he needs a finisher/lob threat to really help him shine to his max potential.

Embiid has never been to the ECF and he’s falling apart at the age of 31. That’s a guy that conservative teams wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole. Teams will never go anywhere with Embiid as their best player.

[Johnny Bball]

Lets see. The NBA max salary is $50 million this year and rises to $72 million in 4 years.

Siakam is going to be an allstar again, and does not seem overpaid if he is.
OG... if you think OG is overpaid, and not that important, you just don't understand this game.
FVV's deal was seen by people as a handshake agreement to front load a longer contract. That seems dependant on his next deal, but appears high.

Since all three are not number one options ideally, that is the real reason not to keep them all. But if this team had a chance to keep OG, it sure as **** would have.

[ontnut]

Not if 1 is moved as part of the deal like we did DD

That's IND's problem though, always has been. They build so conservatively that this probably isn't going to happen. They never tank, and they never go all-in. They get 2nd tier stars and then think it's good enough (PG13, Hibbert, Lance, Hill) to beat teams with superstars.

Pascal and Hali are in that weird place where they're being paid the max, but they're not really outperforming their contract like top superstars do, and they're not necessarily underperforming it either. From IND's perspective, they're not signing anyone better with that money, and their contracts are "good deals" for IND. At this stage, who can they really trade them for that doesn't create another hole? They're not as 2-way deep as the Raps were before the Kawhi trade. Turner, Mathurin, Nembhard, Nesmith, Toppin...All kinda fine players, but they're not scaring many teams in the playoffs. Their run to the ECF was littered with broken teams.

Now if they did something like trade Turner, Mathurin and all their picks for Embiid...that could be an actually interesting move for both sides. That's the kind of move they'd need to make to really become a contender and not just a 45 win team that wins a series, maybe 2. I don't know who else they could get that would fit well with Hali and Siakam.

We know that Pascal can't carry an offense in the playoffs by himself, and relying on comes-and-goes 3pt shooting from Hali and the "others" just isn't going to cut it. Hali is like Nash in that while he's a solid player in his own right, he needs a finisher/lob threat to really help him shine to his max potential.

Embiid has never been to the ECF and he’s falling apart at the age of 31. That’s a guy that conservative teams wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole. Teams will never go anywhere with Embiid as their best player.

I totally agree that IND would never, but that's why they will never win a chip. You need to be aggressive to win a chip. As much as I dislike Embiid, I dont' necessarily blame him for not making the ECF - the one year he did have a true ECF team, we bounced them.

[Merit]

16/6/2 on the following percentages, 38/35/34.

He's played 9/~41 games.

$32,500,000.

He's overpaid bro. At 25 years old he has 0 all star appearances. The chances of a 25+ year old getting their first all star appearance is closer to 0% than 1%. He isn't going to be worth his contract.

Lowry was paid $28,703,704 in 2017-18. He was a 3x all star prior to receiving that contract. How is that the same?

At the time Lowry signed his $48M/4yr, that was about 19% of the cap. IQ is getting something similar over the course of his contract. I think they overpaid by about $2-3M/yr, but I suppose the hope would be that he would get to near All-Star level or higher. Obviously, injuries have put a hamper into things but it makes sense to re-evaluate once he gets back on the floor.

The year prior to that extension, over 79 games, Lowry put up 18/5/7/1.5 on 56.7% TS% on a team that won 48 games scoring 101ppg, with very good defence.
IQ had 38 games with us putting up 18/5/7/0.9 on 56.4% TS% on a team that won 25 games, scoring 112ppg, with bad to average defence.

Maybe you could say that it was an overpay for Lowry, but he had stats to back up the argument. With IQ there isn't any, similar stats but inflated due to pace, no defence comparatively, and seeing similar PGs getting paid less. We signed him to that because we traded for an expiring player, either we give him a solid contract or he tests the market and all we have to show for OG is RJ.

I don't think IQ is an albatross contract, but we bid against ourselves by giving too much leverage to the player.

You're missing the context. His contract isn't about the absolute number paid (eg. 32.5 million). It's about a percentage of the cap. Since the cap is going up and his contract is flat, his contract gets better with time. The percentage of the cap it occupies reduces yearly. Even if you don't think he's worth that much money, he's definitely not an albatross contract - like you said. Just like a test is only a snapshot of knowledge at a point in time, you're currently correct that IQ hasn't shown much this season given he's been injured. The future is yet to happen, but I feel pretty good about IQ's contract turning into a value play.

[Scase]

At the time Lowry signed his $48M/4yr, that was about 19% of the cap. IQ is getting something similar over the course of his contract. I think they overpaid by about $2-3M/yr, but I suppose the hope would be that he would get to near All-Star level or higher. Obviously, injuries have put a hamper into things but it makes sense to re-evaluate once he gets back on the floor.

The year prior to that extension, over 79 games, Lowry put up 18/5/7/1.5 on 56.7% TS% on a team that won 48 games scoring 101ppg, with very good defence.
IQ had 38 games with us putting up 18/5/7/0.9 on 56.4% TS% on a team that won 25 games, scoring 112ppg, with bad to average defence.

Maybe you could say that it was an overpay for Lowry, but he had stats to back up the argument. With IQ there isn't any, similar stats but inflated due to pace, no defence comparatively, and seeing similar PGs getting paid less. We signed him to that because we traded for an expiring player, either we give him a solid contract or he tests the market and all we have to show for OG is RJ.

I don't think IQ is an albatross contract, but we bid against ourselves by giving too much leverage to the player.

You're missing the context. His contract isn't about the absolute number paid (eg. 32.5 million). It's about a percentage of the cap. Since the cap is going up and his contract is flat, his contract gets better with time. The percentage of the cap it occupies reduces yearly. Even if you don't think he's worth that much money, he's definitely not an albatross contract - like you said. Just like a test is only a snapshot of knowledge at a point in time, you're currently correct that IQ hasn't shown much this season given he's been injured. The future is yet to happen, but I feel pretty good about IQ's contract turning into a value play.

I'm not missing that context though, I'm aware Lowry was taking up more of the cap, but he was also providing more value to the team than IQ, even if we ignore the injuries.

The PPG of the team is over 10% higher than KLs team, yet IQ is putting up essentially identical stats, but with way worse defence. So in context he's providing way less value, and it's great that his contract is flat so it becomes easier to move as time goes on, but the argument of "It'll be better because he'll cost the same" doesn't really touch on the whole impact part of the equation. I'd rather have a harder to move contract, for a much better player, than the inverse.

IQ's contract will never be a weight around our ankles, but calling it an overpay is not taking into account how easy it is to move, but rather us tying up 22% of the cap for a player that even without the injuries and even with the grace of giving him the inflated stats from the year before, is still not very good value.

The hope/goal was that IQ wasn't going to be seen as easy to move later, but that he is a good decision/signing now and for the future. I had high hopes for him, but it's been a pretty big disappointment so far. Hopefully we get a bounce back for sure, but the contract itself was just a bad idea. 32mil on a 25 year old in his first ever stint as a real starting guard, for a rebuilding team is just not a great call. His value isn't just straight up performance (a lot is mind you) but the fact that we'll be typing up 100mil in 3 dudes, for a 20ish win team.

[Tripod]

Maybe we yry and be patient and remember that at the same age, Kyle was a 11.6pt player. It jumped the following year to just under 18 for 2 years, then jumped up again.

Maybe let's give IQ time especially given he has been hurt all year.

[GreatWhiteStiff]

FVV making more than Siakam is disgusting

I want you to speculate on the kind of money he will be commanding this offsizzy, Del.

[Merit]

The year prior to that extension, over 79 games, Lowry put up 18/5/7/1.5 on 56.7% TS% on a team that won 48 games scoring 101ppg, with very good defence.
IQ had 38 games with us putting up 18/5/7/0.9 on 56.4% TS% on a team that won 25 games, scoring 112ppg, with bad to average defence.

Maybe you could say that it was an overpay for Lowry, but he had stats to back up the argument. With IQ there isn't any, similar stats but inflated due to pace, no defence comparatively, and seeing similar PGs getting paid less. We signed him to that because we traded for an expiring player, either we give him a solid contract or he tests the market and all we have to show for OG is RJ.

I don't think IQ is an albatross contract, but we bid against ourselves by giving too much leverage to the player.

You're missing the context. His contract isn't about the absolute number paid (eg. 32.5 million). It's about a percentage of the cap. Since the cap is going up and his contract is flat, his contract gets better with time. The percentage of the cap it occupies reduces yearly. Even if you don't think he's worth that much money, he's definitely not an albatross contract - like you said. Just like a test is only a snapshot of knowledge at a point in time, you're currently correct that IQ hasn't shown much this season given he's been injured. The future is yet to happen, but I feel pretty good about IQ's contract turning into a value play.

I'm not missing that context though, I'm aware Lowry was taking up more of the cap, but he was also providing more value to the team than IQ, even if we ignore the injuries.

The PPG of the team is over 10% higher than KLs team, yet IQ is putting up essentially identical stats, but with way worse defence. So in context he's providing way less value, and it's great that his contract is flat so it becomes easier to move as time goes on, but the argument of "It'll be better because he'll cost the same" doesn't really touch on the whole impact part of the equation. I'd rather have a harder to move contract, for a much better player, than the inverse.

IQ's contract will never be a weight around our ankles, but calling it an overpay is not taking into account how easy it is to move, but rather us tying up 22% of the cap for a player that even without the injuries and even with the grace of giving him the inflated stats from the year before, is still not very good value.

The hope/goal was that IQ wasn't going to be seen as easy to move later, but that he is a good decision/signing now and for the future. I had high hopes for him, but it's been a pretty big disappointment so far. Hopefully we get a bounce back for sure, but the contract itself was just a bad idea. 32mil on a 25 year old in his first ever stint as a real starting guard, for a rebuilding team is just not a great call. His value isn't just straight up performance (a lot is mind you) but the fact that we'll be typing up 100mil in 3 dudes, for a 20ish win team.

Is he amazing value now? No. He's been injured and we're tanking. I won't be even the slightest bit concerned until both those scenarios change.

[Scase]

You're missing the context. His contract isn't about the absolute number paid (eg. 32.5 million). It's about a percentage of the cap. Since the cap is going up and his contract is flat, his contract gets better with time. The percentage of the cap it occupies reduces yearly. Even if you don't think he's worth that much money, he's definitely not an albatross contract - like you said. Just like a test is only a snapshot of knowledge at a point in time, you're currently correct that IQ hasn't shown much this season given he's been injured. The future is yet to happen, but I feel pretty good about IQ's contract turning into a value play.

I'm not missing that context though, I'm aware Lowry was taking up more of the cap, but he was also providing more value to the team than IQ, even if we ignore the injuries.

The PPG of the team is over 10% higher than KLs team, yet IQ is putting up essentially identical stats, but with way worse defence. So in context he's providing way less value, and it's great that his contract is flat so it becomes easier to move as time goes on, but the argument of "It'll be better because he'll cost the same" doesn't really touch on the whole impact part of the equation. I'd rather have a harder to move contract, for a much better player, than the inverse.

IQ's contract will never be a weight around our ankles, but calling it an overpay is not taking into account how easy it is to move, but rather us tying up 22% of the cap for a player that even without the injuries and even with the grace of giving him the inflated stats from the year before, is still not very good value.

The hope/goal was that IQ wasn't going to be seen as easy to move later, but that he is a good decision/signing now and for the future. I had high hopes for him, but it's been a pretty big disappointment so far. Hopefully we get a bounce back for sure, but the contract itself was just a bad idea. 32mil on a 25 year old in his first ever stint as a real starting guard, for a rebuilding team is just not a great call. His value isn't just straight up performance (a lot is mind you) but the fact that we'll be typing up 100mil in 3 dudes, for a 20ish win team.

Is he amazing value now? No. He's been injured and we're tanking. I won't be even the slightest bit concerned until both those scenarios change.

He is never going to be amazing value, he doesn't have that kind of ceiling. The best and most realistic outcome is that his contract in a couple years is seen as decent value for what he provides. And I'm not complaining about that, but it's not typically how I value contracts. Being easy to ship off isn't the primary attribute you look for in a contract, value is when a player noticeably out performs the contract they signed.

Like Brunson for instance, no one looks at that as a good contract to move, it's that they wouldn't want to move it, is what makes it great value.