MasterGMer wrote:Joker just declined Denver's Extension offer. Something brewing out there?
I don't think so. He will lock in more money if he waits until the summer of 2026 to extend.
Moderators: Def Swami, Howard Mass, ChosenSavior, UCF, Knightro, UCFJayBird
MasterGMer wrote:Joker just declined Denver's Extension offer. Something brewing out there?
Knightro wrote:MasterGMer wrote:Joker just declined Denver's Extension offer. Something brewing out there?
I don't think so. He will lock in more money if he waits until the summer of 2026 to extend.
MasterGMer wrote:Knightro wrote:MasterGMer wrote:Joker just declined Denver's Extension offer. Something brewing out there?
I don't think so. He will lock in more money if he waits until the summer of 2026 to extend.
From what I read, Jokic was kinda frustrated at the end of last season. I do not know the marginal moves by DEN could make him happy. We shall find out
MasterGMer wrote:Knightro wrote:MasterGMer wrote:Joker just declined Denver's Extension offer. Something brewing out there?
I don't think so. He will lock in more money if he waits until the summer of 2026 to extend.
From what I read, Jokic was kinda frustrated at the end of last season. I do not know the marginal moves by DEN could make him happy. We shall find out
GelbeWand09 wrote:MasterGMer wrote:Knightro wrote:
I don't think so. He will lock in more money if he waits until the summer of 2026 to extend.
From what I read, Jokic was kinda frustrated at the end of last season. I do not know the marginal moves by DEN could make him happy. We shall find out
I definitely wouldn't call it marginal. They upgraded their roster, while shipping out one of the top 5 worst contracts in the leaque getting the better player for almost half the salary and other useful bench players all while losing to the Champs in 7 games. Denver is in a muuuuuuch better situation than 1 month before.
Denver is probably the no 2 team in the leaque on paper now. Not that bad of a situation for Joker.
pepe1991 wrote:GelbeWand09 wrote:MasterGMer wrote:
From what I read, Jokic was kinda frustrated at the end of last season. I do not know the marginal moves by DEN could make him happy. We shall find out
I definitely wouldn't call it marginal. They upgraded their roster, while shipping out one of the top 5 worst contracts in the leaque getting the better player for almost half the salary and other useful bench players all while losing to the Champs in 7 games. Denver is in a muuuuuuch better situation than 1 month before.
Denver is probably the no 2 team in the leaque on paper now. Not that bad of a situation for Joker.
Porter was such a colossal two-way problem.
For start, defense. Easily one of worst wing defenders in nba. Always out of balance, always wrong reads. Most of his defense was his solid athletics that allowed him to recover from poor original decision.
But on offense, he never developed. He was groomed to be 1# overall pick, unguardable in high school. However, in nba he kind a had nothing but jumpshot. You couldn't put him in small roll, he couldn't handle the ball, he couldn't create own shots, he couldn't even run most basic pick&roll as handler. As "big" ...yea... good luck with his screens. Those were Bamba- level-bad.
Passing? What's that? Error.
His whole existence on offense is him making near impossible difficulty shots because his shooting accuracy is unbelievable, but it's always same play: 0 dribbles- perfect, 1 dribble- okey, +2 dribbles "God this is mistake in making".
Breakdown of shot selection:
13,6 FGA a game
8- FGA - a game with 0 dribbles (65% eFG)
2,5 FGA a game with 1 dribble (55% eFG)
1,7 FGA -a game with 2 dribbles ( 52% eFG)
42-97 with more than 2 dribbles. Not *bad* but it's more of him being incapable of even putting himself in situation to take shot when he has to dribble for prolonged period of time. And yea... if he tries to dribble he will just lose ball because he can't break through defenders and can't pass.
Porter is incredible shooter. But even compared to other incredible shooters he is incredibly limited. Whole lot of times he plays like Luke Kennard and is paid to play like SGA/OG /Franz.
Cam will make their defense so much better and offense won't suffer. Matter of fact, passing and decision making will actually probably improve.
sChOlaRlY_Magi wrote:Damn, I would say because of the cap, there’s no way to afford him now, but it looks like Boston would give away Simons for cap space at this point….
Would they waive and stretch him? Surely not, right?
I still can’t believe they did that with Lillard over in Mil. Crazy offseason.
sChOlaRlY_Magi wrote:Damn, I would say because of the cap, there’s no way to afford him now, but it looks like Boston would give away Simons for cap space at this point….
Would they waive and stretch him? Surely not, right?
I still can’t believe they did that with Lillard over in Mil. Crazy offseason.
Knightro wrote:sChOlaRlY_Magi wrote:Damn, I would say because of the cap, there’s no way to afford him now, but it looks like Boston would give away Simons for cap space at this point….
Would they waive and stretch him? Surely not, right?
I still can’t believe they did that with Lillard over in Mil. Crazy offseason.
I think Boston stretch waiving Simons is absolutely at least under consideration.
They're still $20.2M over the luxury tax which is going to be an $88.4M dollar tax bill because of the repeater tax.
If they stretched Simons, they would immediately shed $18.4M which would put them very close to out of the tax completely.
Skybox wrote:Knightro wrote:sChOlaRlY_Magi wrote:Damn, I would say because of the cap, there’s no way to afford him now, but it looks like Boston would give away Simons for cap space at this point….
Would they waive and stretch him? Surely not, right?
I still can’t believe they did that with Lillard over in Mil. Crazy offseason.
I think Boston stretch waiving Simons is absolutely at least under consideration.
They're still $20.2M over the luxury tax which is going to be an $88.4M dollar tax bill because of the repeater tax.
If they stretched Simons, they would immediately shed $18.4M which would put them very close to out of the tax completely.
If a guy is expiring...isn't a simple buyout more favorable than stretching him? I imagine the point is to cut this year's tax, but would stretching extend the burden into future years (albeit less per year)?
yoyojw17 wrote:Chet getting his max deal..... JWill about to get the same .... Sooooooooo...... OKC is about to open up a window that might be only 1 year long before they become a second apron team like us.
Idiosyncratic wrote:yoyojw17 wrote:Chet getting his max deal..... JWill about to get the same .... Sooooooooo...... OKC is about to open up a window that might be only 1 year long before they become a second apron team like us.
They'll be fine for a while. May have to lose guys like Hartenstein, Caruso and Dort in the next couple of years, but they have likely two 1sts next year and three in 2027. Plus Sorber was a massive pick for them this year IMO, even their 2nd rounder Barnhizer looks like he will fit their scheme.
I think they should be a title contender for at least 4-5 years barring anything crazy injury wise happening. Not saying they are guaranteed to be deep enough to be THE contender, but they should be in the realm. And if they hit on their 5 picks plus Sorber the next two years? Could even extend the window. Also own a ton of 2nds they could consolidate into 1sts.
There is kind of an element of luck (it's skill too) nowadays in that you need to hit on your picks to sustain a roster in this CBA. For us we really need at least two of TDS, Penda and Jase to be rotation guys or the depth is going to be pretty bad going forward. They will be in the same situation of needing picks to work out as we are, but they have more room for error since they own so many. And the big thing for them is they already got their title so they probably aren't going to feel pressed to do anything drastic that could shrink the window.
jonbob17 wrote:Am i reading it right Holmgren did not sign a designated rookie max. Just a rookie 5 year max...assuming something similar to Desmond Bane but with some bonuses. It's a lot of money. All of these contracts are...but this is what irks me about Paolo insisting on that player option.
MartinsIzAfraud wrote:jonbob17 wrote:Am i reading it right Holmgren did not sign a designated rookie max. Just a rookie 5 year max...assuming something similar to Desmond Bane but with some bonuses. It's a lot of money. All of these contracts are...but this is what irks me about Paolo insisting on that player option.
Paolo wanted that player option since he'll be 28 so he could opt out and try for that final 3rd big contract.. or you could say he wanted it in case things don't pan out and he wants out. Regardless he is 1 of 3 players I think to receive this player option on a contract this big.