Shams: Fox gets max extension.

[babyjax13]

I think Lauri money, which is about 25 million less than this over 4 years, would be closer to his value. But San Antonio can obviously afford this with all the rookie contracts, so if they are certain they will keep him I do not think it is a huge deal for the Spurs.

[hugepatsfan]

Fringe or not, he is still an elite pg in his prime

FAR from elite, he's a top-100 player. Looking at per 100 possession numbers he's surprisingly comparable on the offensive end to Collin Sexton, though far less efficient than him last year. And while he's not nearly as godawful on defense as Collin, he's still subpar on that end.

He played for the crap teams so far. I trust my eyes.

I think part of why he plays for crap teams is because teams that invest in a player like him (scoring PG, not overly efficient, ball dominant, bad defense) trend towards being a crap team.

[wemby]

As neither of us were in the room, I'm not sure what is or is not clear. We don't know what the Kings were offering.

So you're claiming the very weak and desperate Kings' GM was lowballing him and he chose to immolate himself by demanding a trade rather than coming clean and putting pressure on them? That would have to be among the most stupid strategies in NBA history.

I think it's very possible that the Kings were lukewarm or noncommital on a max extension, or at least noncommital on a max extension at the earliest possible opportunity, and Klutch immediately began exploring the trade market.

I think that goes against everything reported by credible sources at the time (Shams, Amick, etc), and it even goes against common sense for the reasons explained. Those things leak, and it would have been in Fox's best interest to do so rather than making himself to be the bad guy. Really makes no sense whatsoever as a theory, I'm stunned someone would even make that case.

[gswhoops]

Fringe or not, he is still an elite pg in his prime

FAR from elite, he's a top-100 player. Looking at per 100 possession numbers he's surprisingly comparable on the offensive end to Collin Sexton, though far less efficient than him last year. And while he's not nearly as godawful on defense as Collin, he's still subpar on that end.

You've got to be using a pretty generous definition of "elite" to include Fox in the list of "elite" PGs.

Off the top of my head I'd have Curry, Luka, SGA, Harden, Ja, Brunson, Hali, Cade, Trae ahead of him, and I think you can make arguments for LaMelo, Maxey, Garland, and Murray as well.

[Doctor MJ]

This is wild to me. I'm just not sure this is what's best for Victor, and shouldn't that be the goal for every move going forward?

It gives them a solid veteran all-star-ish lead guard for the next few years while Castle and Harper develop. Someone to win-now with Wemby, and then they can move him in two or three years if Castle and Harper are totally ready.

Imagine if they hadn't traded for Fox, and Wemby - already an all-nba player - was forced to languish with a rookie guard and a second year guard as his backcourt.

Seems very Sac Kingsish. Kings maxed Fox and when Hali came along no one wanted Fox on his contract and they were forced to trade Hali because not enough space for all their guards.

Clearly the Spurs should now trade Wemby because they can get more for him than Fox.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Doctor MJ]

If this was from a promise upon his acquisition, so be it.

It almost has to be, because in their current situation, this is insanely stupid.

Fox is an undersized PG with the defensive issues that come from his stature. He’s good finisher, solid from midrange, and weak as you get further out. Solid passer, solid on turnovers, good not great from the line, and his draw rate is declining as he ages and pulls up more.

He’s had one year ever above league average TS, and probably a few others slightly above average for a PG. So, pretty good volume scorer, below average defense at his position, average playmaker. That’s not worth a 30% max extension today. It might have been worth one five years ago, but it DEFINITELY isn’t today.

He’ll be moveable in the sense that teams will take him, but not in the sense that he’ll return real value like Bane did. Lavine-ish. It’s too much money.

Feels like the Spurs felt obligated to give him the contract despite the fact they’d never have pursued Fox in free agency with a deal like this.

So yeah, not ideal basketball logic, but there probably would have been some cultural cost if they were accused of reneging.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Doctor MJ]

Spurs finally make an idiotic play. Fox is nowhere near that valuable.

Well, they did go all in on star duo Aldridge-DeRozan like the 3-point stripe wasn’t there right when the rest of the league fully embraced the 3, so I’d say in general their GMimg hasn’t been great for a while.

In the other hand their player development remained strong so here’s hoping.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[oldncreaky]

Meant to put in "Rumors, ...." thread (sorry for derailing)

Barnes and Wagner are 5 year contracts not 4 year. Fox is making on average 9 million more a year than those guys during that extension.

And those guys have been in the league 4 years less than Fox.. seems a random comparison to me.

I don’t really see why Fox is a 30% max guy. I would’ve understood a 3yr max though honestly. Or a 2+po if Fox wanted that instead..

But I do think Fox is talented enough that he’ll be flipped similar to LaVine in 3 years? So not actually worst contract in the league, just never an asset unless Fox plays his best ball.

He's not worse contract in the league now. But he could become that if he doesn't make the most of the spacing the Spurs will have. There is a world where Harper-Castle are a perfect fit and Fox plus-minus drops.

Even in that world - I think same as LaVine there will be some desperate team that’s willing to offer a combination of salary relief and a lower end asset for him imo…

Just looking at next offseason..

Brooklyn - will be trying to improve due to not owning their own pick

Utah -if Lauri is still in Utah you can look at Kessler/Lauri/Bailey/Peterson/Fox as an affordable group for 3 years.

Ishbia will have a first to trade and Fox/Book feels a lot better than Green/Booker

Dumars might still have a job..

don’t think Fox will ever be seen as a great asset or really worth the contract at all, but do think they’ll be able to trim money and get a minor asset when Dylan shows he is ready.

I have a great deal of empathy for Pels fans. No franchise deserves to be stuck with Joe D. He was a great player, a worthy HOFer, and franchise icon and a solid citizen -- but a really bad GM

WTH, did the Pelicans ownership not pay attention to Joe Dumars' last decade in charge of the Pistons? His trades were bad; his lottery picks were worse; his free agency signings were between bad and catastrophic.

[louc1970]

Fox will be making an average of $57.25 million a year.
He is being paid year 1 the same as Doncic,
slightly more than Mitchell, Cunningham ($50.1M),
a bit more than Young, Haliburton, Edwards ($48.9M),
nearly $9M more than Morant, Garland (his equivalents).

His deal is going to be hard to move in 2 years.

[Klomp]

I think Lauri money, which is about 25 million less than this over 4 years, would be closer to his value. But San Antonio can obviously afford this with all the rookie contracts, so if they are certain they will keep him I do not think it is a huge deal for the Spurs.

Technically true (and maybe CBA changes with the salary floor impacts it too), but it feels like a dangerous game.

Just one year ago, San Antonio deferred a current Top 10 pick for an unknown pick 7 years down the road because they talked about collecting assets for being ready to compete when Victor is in his prime. So if they aren't worried about being ready to compete until he is in his prime, why are you paying $55 million-plus to ANY player, not to mention one who is borderline Top 30 player at best?!

[Econgrad]

Yeah I’m going to pile on, it’s too much even if it’s already prearranged.

I also don’t love maxing him but staying away from vets at spots of need.

Other teams would have paid Fox this, so it's his market rate. Nobody complained at the time of the trade. You can't expect the Spurs to double-cross him, especially not after he was the first guy ever to force his way to the Spurs.

It would have to be a situation with a team having cap room and needed a point guard. The idea of this being market rate is wrong. Market should be what a player could get if he were available as a UFA. So many stars would have to align for Fox to get this as a UFA that it is not realistic to expect he would get $50+M per year.
Teams will cry about second apron taking away flexibility, all the while signing players early to extensions for way above what that player would receive on the open market as a free agent. Teams continue to shoot themselves in the foot with these early extensions.

[One_and_Done]

Yeah I’m going to pile on, it’s too much even if it’s already prearranged.

I also don’t love maxing him but staying away from vets at spots of need.

Other teams would have paid Fox this, so it's his market rate. Nobody complained at the time of the trade. You can't expect the Spurs to double-cross him, especially not after he was the first guy ever to force his way to the Spurs.

It would have to be a situation with a team having cap room and needed a point guard. The idea of this being market rate is wrong. Market should be what a player could get if he were available as a UFA. So many stars would have to align for Fox to get this as a UFA that it is not realistic to expect he would get $50+M per year.
Teams will cry about second apron taking away flexibility, all the while signing players early to extensions for way above what that player would receive on the open market as a free agent. Teams continue to shoot themselves in the foot with these early extensions.

It's his market rate at the time you trade for him and agree under the table on the contract. Other teams would have had cap space next offseason or been able to open it if they knew he'd be a free agent. The Kings were also trying to extend him.

This is all a bit silly. There were multiple teams trying to get Fox, e.g. the Heat, and you don't try to trade for him without knowing what the agreed extension price to get him is. Those teams all talked to Rich Paul behind the scenes, and understood they had to max him for him to stay.

[tmorgan]

Other teams would have paid Fox this, so it's his market rate. Nobody complained at the time of the trade. You can't expect the Spurs to double-cross him, especially not after he was the first guy ever to force his way to the Spurs.

It would have to be a situation with a team having cap room and needed a point guard. The idea of this being market rate is wrong. Market should be what a player could get if he were available as a UFA. So many stars would have to align for Fox to get this as a UFA that it is not realistic to expect he would get $50+M per year.
Teams will cry about second apron taking away flexibility, all the while signing players early to extensions for way above what that player would receive on the open market as a free agent. Teams continue to shoot themselves in the foot with these early extensions.

It's his market rate at the time you trade for him and agree under the table on the contract. Other teams would have had cap space next offseason or been able to open it if they knew he'd be a free agent. The Kings were also trying to extend him.

This is all a bit silly. There were multiple teams trying to get Fox, e.g. the Heat, and you don't try to trade for him without knowing what the agreed extension price to get him is. Those teams all talked to Rich Paul behind the scenes, and understood they had to max him for him to stay.

There have always been more players that think they deserve a full max deal than players that actually deserve them. Human nature.

But in 2025, that gap in reality is wider than ever. In my estimation, Fox is one of the worst cases, as in he demanded it and got it (one would assume during the trade process), but is far from deserving it in terms of overall performance. He’s a classic case of “PPG, yo!” In the exact same mold as Bradley Beal and Zach Lavine, except with better PG skills but less scoring efficiency. The league is getting smarter about this kind of stuff, but clearly isn’t all the way there yet.

Sure, this is the Spurs only current max deal and they can easily afford it for this year and next given their roster composition. That doesn’t make it wise. Fox on his extension is extremely unlikely to provide acceptable production for the money, which means they’ve taken a good player and turned him into a weak asset. It’s just poor management. I suppose in the grand scheme of things, getting Harper this year was a big gift, and perhaps getting nothing substantial in return to move a roadblock out of his way eventually is a small price to pay for that. Harper has to play full-time PG at some point to be really valuable because he doesn’t look like a good enough natural shooter or defender to provide big value off-ball.

This is a misstep by San Antonio, even if they made it last year without knowledge of the future.

[jbk1234]

So you're claiming the very weak and desperate Kings' GM was lowballing him and he chose to immolate himself by demanding a trade rather than coming clean and putting pressure on them? That would have to be among the most stupid strategies in NBA history.

I think it's very possible that the Kings were lukewarm or noncommital on a max extension, or at least noncommital on a max extension at the earliest possible opportunity, and Klutch immediately began exploring the trade market.

I think that goes against everything reported by credible sources at the time (Shams, Amick, etc), and it even goes against common sense for the reasons explained. Those things leak, and it would have been in Fox's best interest to do so rather than making himself to be the bad guy. Really makes no sense whatsoever as a theory, I'm stunned someone would even make that case.

The extension offer he turned down in the summer of 24 was only for $165M.

[One_and_Done]

It would have to be a situation with a team having cap room and needed a point guard. The idea of this being market rate is wrong. Market should be what a player could get if he were available as a UFA. So many stars would have to align for Fox to get this as a UFA that it is not realistic to expect he would get $50+M per year.
Teams will cry about second apron taking away flexibility, all the while signing players early to extensions for way above what that player would receive on the open market as a free agent. Teams continue to shoot themselves in the foot with these early extensions.

It's his market rate at the time you trade for him and agree under the table on the contract. Other teams would have had cap space next offseason or been able to open it if they knew he'd be a free agent. The Kings were also trying to extend him.

This is all a bit silly. There were multiple teams trying to get Fox, e.g. the Heat, and you don't try to trade for him without knowing what the agreed extension price to get him is. Those teams all talked to Rich Paul behind the scenes, and understood they had to max him for him to stay.

There have always been more players that think they deserve a full max deal than players that actually deserve them. Human nature.

But in 2025, that gap in reality is wider than ever. In my estimation, Fox is one of the worst cases, as in he demanded it and got it (one would assume during the trade process), but is far from deserving it in terms of overall performance. He’s a classic case of “PPG, yo!” In the exact same mold as Bradley Beal and Zach Lavine, except with better PG skills but less scoring efficiency. The league is getting smarter about this kind of stuff, but clearly isn’t all the way there yet.

Sure, this is the Spurs only current max deal and they can easily afford it for this year and next given their roster composition. That doesn’t make it wise. Fox on his extension is extremely unlikely to provide acceptable production for the money, which means they’ve taken a good player and turned him into a weak asset. It’s just poor management. I suppose in the grand scheme of things, getting Harper this year was a big gift, and perhaps getting nothing substantial in return to move a roadblock out of his way eventually is a small price to pay for that. Harper has to play full-time PG at some point to be really valuable because he doesn’t look like a good enough natural shooter or defender to provide big value off-ball.

This is a misstep by San Antonio, even if they made it last year without knowledge of the future.

Your last sentence completely undercuts the rest. The Spurs biggest need a year ago was a player like Fox. They couldn't know they'd jump up to #2 in the lottery. If they need to move someone in a few years, they will. They can't know the future though, and you can't walk back promises you make.

[tmorgan]

I’m not going to extend the quoting, but…

No, of course it doesn’t undercut the argument. It explains WHY they did what they did, that’s all. Even without Harper in the wings, this is a stupid contract, and San Antonio was stupid to agree to it. With Harper, it’s even worse.

[Sactowndog]

It gives them a solid veteran all-star-ish lead guard for the next few years while Castle and Harper develop. Someone to win-now with Wemby, and then they can move him in two or three years if Castle and Harper are totally ready.

Imagine if they hadn't traded for Fox, and Wemby - already an all-nba player - was forced to languish with a rookie guard and a second year guard as his backcourt.

Seems very Sac Kingsish. Kings maxed Fox and when Hali came along no one wanted Fox on his contract and they were forced to trade Hali because not enough space for all their guards.

Clearly the Spurs should now trade Wemby because they can get more for him than Fox.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice snark….

The point is just like the Kings had Fox, Haliburton and Mitchell, in Fox, Castle and Harper the Spurs have 3 guards who all operate best with the ball in their hands. Everyone said take them and just trade the one you don’t want and it was proven to not be that easy.

The Kings wanted to trade Fox not Haliburton but his contract was not tradeable for any kind of value so the ultimately traded Hali to clear the log jam. I suspect the same will happen here. Whoever ends up best between Castle and Harper is who teams will target because they know the situation is not sustainable long term and SA will have to make a move.

[nykballa2k4]

What reason was there not to do this?

He's not worth that much money? Is another reason really necessary?

They can afford to overpay him for a couple years while Wemby/Castle/Harper are cheap, but it'll limit their options to build around those four. And if you end up hitting on both Castle and Harper, Fox is going to be hard to move.

Honestly, disagree. Fox and Wemby are known commodities and even with a max extension, Wemby is going to be underpaid. When you put together Fox/Wemby and their contracts it amounts to positive value for the duration of the contract. Castle and Harper both clearly need to develop and one or both may wind up being a trade asset if a star-level(Banchero level) player becomes available.

[tmorgan]

What reason was there not to do this?

He's not worth that much money? Is another reason really necessary?

They can afford to overpay him for a couple years while Wemby/Castle/Harper are cheap, but it'll limit their options to build around those four. And if you end up hitting on both Castle and Harper, Fox is going to be hard to move.

Honestly, disagree. Fox and Wemby are known commodities and even with a max extension, Wemby is going to be underpaid. When you put together Fox/Wemby and their contracts it amounts to positive value for the duration of the contract. Castle and Harper both clearly need to develop and one or both may wind up being a trade asset if a star-level(Banchero level) player becomes available.

Because you have an undervalued asset, it’s ok to intentionally take/make an overvalued asset because the net is still positive? You really think that counts as intelligent asset management?

The awesomeness in having a Jokic, SGA, Doncic, Giannis or Wemby is that they can’t be fairly compensated, true. But you’re supposed to use that advantage to create a roster with more talent and more cohesion than would otherwise be possible. You don’t piss part of the advantage away by paying a guy that’s probably around the 10th best PG in the league (depends on who counts as PGs, could be even lower) as if he’s the 5th best PG in the league.

The Spurs basically got to start from scratch when they drafted Wemby. They had some other talent (Vassell, Sochan, some JAGs), but nothing particularly notable for the long term. To make your first non-draft pick commitment a PG made sense at the time, but to immediately make Fox at best a neutral deal (if he really plays well, which he has done once before) and at worst an albatross (if he plays like last year) is likely not very wise. If this future commitment was a known thing at the time of the deal, San Antonio should have passed.

[One_and_Done]

This reminds me alot of the Rashard Lewis or OG deals, where fans have sticker shock and seem to not understand what it takes to get premium players.