Daddy 801 wrote:It’s been reported the Jazz want two unprotected first round draft picks. The salary and players probably don’t matter much. But they would probably need to be contracts that expire sooner than later or more compensation would need to come to Utah. I think Utah has enough picks that convey in later years so the picks would probably need to be a 26 and a 27 or 28 pick.
No idea what Detroits draft assets are, but that’s probably what it takes.
The salary of a player means a helluva lot. It determines what sort of surplus value can be assigned to that player and whether he's worth the salary. It's why legit superstars are so invaluable, despite a 30/35% max or supermax, their value to a team from their on court impact goes way beyond the salary. Its why people rightly lost their **** when Luka was traded and Dallas lambasted, his value is so utterly immense the Lakers shoulda been pillage of all available draft assets and giving him a supermax was a no brainer that DAL refused to do.
Lauri making 30% of a team's cap severely limits a team's ability to build out the rest of the roster and its why 2 seasons ago after his crazy breakout while having 2 dirt cheap years remaining on his deal at the time is why Ainge was rightly demanding a superstar package of unprotected FRP/swaps. Ainge screwed up so badly in not trading him when his value/buzz was at its highest, even if he couldnt get the super star Harden/KD/Gobert/DMitch/Bane type of package, even getting 3 lightly protected FRPs/swaps woulda been been great, as it was clear that team wanted to tank and find their future superstar, hence all the benching of vets. Instead Ainge waited around til Lauri's value totally rotted away AND gave him a star level 30% max deal extension, which utterly obliterated whatever surplus value he could've had. Unless you truly believe Lauri is a #1/2 option on a contender, paying him 30% of your cap is far from ideal. 2nd Apron CBA has been team building MUCH harsher in how you allocate your cap.
Just look at Austin Reaves situation. Utterly amazing steal when the Lakers kept him after his rookie contract, 4yrs/50mil (4th yr PO), but as time went on and his cheap years ticked off his value rightly plummetted. Adding Reaves to an established team making 12-13mil a year for at least 2 years meant he had plenty of surplus value, but now that he's in his contract walk year, the Lakers need to decide if its worth keeping Reaves at market rate or not. Reaves already turned down a 4yr/90mil extension offer, so he's clearly hoping he's gonna get paid like offense only gunners like CJ McCollum or Tyler Herro, which is NEVER going to happen again in the new 2nd apron CBA for players of this archetype. Until Reaves is locked in on a fresh deal, his value is low due to the uncertainty of what his next deal may be and the Lakers would be wise to NOT extend Reaves to a deal anywhere past 22mil a year, as that would utterly obliterate any surplus value he may generate, for the type of player he is.
Walker Kessler is gonna be another interesting case study on whether Ainge learned a damned thing or not. A fine young player on his rookie deal and Utah has his RFA rights. It's doubtful Ainge can trade him for a crazy package, sure he has one cheap rookie year left, but he's gonna need to be paid soon (RFA rights is a big bonus though). If Kessler's 2nd contracts is a Zubac level deal (18-20mil a year), then he'll likely have alot of surplus value, if he gets a Poetl sized deal (28mil a year) then kiss any surplus value good bye. Why should a team trade for Kessler when you can just use your cap space to sign a comparable player AND not give up any assets. Kessler is young/good enough to keep around for the next Utah core, just need to be stingy with how much you pay him, HOWEVER you run the risk of turning Kessler disgruntled after a contentious RFA **** negotiation and you might get Ayton'ed.
