Shams: Fox gets max extension.

[SkyHook]

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.

Yeah, that was the max extension he was eligible for at the time (3 years, 165 million)

If that was the strongest argument you could come up with, you might want to sit this one out.

The bolded isn't exactly a strong argument. Absence of evidence for one possibility is in no way evidence of its opposite.

It's not hard to believe that even an organization as poorly run as the Kings might balk at a max extension for a middling player at his position; it's certainly in the realm of probability. And I suspect that a few teams inquired about trading for Fox then balked upon learning of his extension demands.

[SkyHook]

Explain how your question is the slightest bit pertinent and I’ll answer.

I just compared their situation. Do you think those max deals were bad?

OG didnt sign a full max though? And I dont have the time to look up what Lewis' deal would have been in that era. Maybe there is a disconnect there; I dont see anyone saying Fox is some sort of mid-level guy by any means. But certainly some are questioning giving him the full max given his career to date. Maybe he bounces back to have a 3 or 4 more years like he did in 23. But even if he does the contract feels like its at best a fair deal and not a good value one. And if he doesnt get back to that level, he'll be really overpaid. And given the new CBA environment everyone is still working through, I'm not as confident that in 2 or 3 years big contracts for players outside the top 25 are going to be as moveable as they have been in the past. So its basically no upside for the team and they take all the downside risk. Great deal for Fox though!!

I think most people recognize this was all agreed to prior to the trade. And that it would be hard to go back on your word now with Klutch. So even if circumstances might have changed given the lottery luck, they do need to move forward with it. But I think its still more than fair to question why, even at the time of the trade, the Spurs agreed to give him the full max. Maybe other teams were interested in him? We dont know to what extent other teams were willing to do the full max. The reporting at the time started with a handful of teams and then narrowed to 'he wants the Spurs' which leads me to speculate others maybe werent as willing to do the full max and his interest cooled on them. Similar to how Jimmy only wanted Phoenix because thats who was willing to pay him the max.

Sound reasoning.

[wemby]

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

Yeah, that was the max extension he was eligible for at the time (3 years, 165 million)

If that was the strongest argument you could come up with, you might want to sit this one out.

The bolded isn't exactly a strong argument. Absence of evidence for one possibility is in no way evidence of its opposite.

It's not hard to believe that even an organization as poorly run as the Kings might balk at a max extension for a middling player at his position; it's certainly in the realm of probability. And I suspect that a few teams inquired about trading for Fox then balked upon learning of his extension demands.

My guy, there's two accounts of the situation: one by Shams Charania and Sam Amick, in which the Kings wanted to extend Fox for the max but he said he would not, and another by jbk1234 and SkyHook, random posters on RealGM with no sources. My evidence is the account of credible reporters, yours is mere speculation by a random poster on the internet. If you're worried about weak arguments, look in the mirror.

[SkyHook]

Yeah, that was the max extension he was eligible for at the time (3 years, 165 million)

If that was the strongest argument you could come up with, you might want to sit this one out.

The bolded isn't exactly a strong argument. Absence of evidence for one possibility is in no way evidence of its opposite.

It's not hard to believe that even an organization as poorly run as the Kings might balk at a max extension for a middling player at his position; it's certainly in the realm of probability. And I suspect that a few teams inquired about trading for Fox then balked upon learning of his extension demands.

My guy, there's two accounts of the situation: one by Shams Charania and Sam Amick, in which the Kings wanted to extend Fox for the max but he said he would not, and another by jbk1234 and SkyHook, random posters on RealGM with no sources. My evidence is the account of credible reporters, yours is mere speculation by a random poster on the internet. If you're worried about weak arguments, look in the mirror.

I only see reports of him turning down the 3y, $165MM extension offered last summer. If you have a link to a report of him refusing to sign THIS particular extension when SAC could offer it, you're welcome to share it and I'll be happy to read it.

[wemby]

The bolded isn't exactly a strong argument. Absence of evidence for one possibility is in no way evidence of its opposite.

It's not hard to believe that even an organization as poorly run as the Kings might balk at a max extension for a middling player at his position; it's certainly in the realm of probability. And I suspect that a few teams inquired about trading for Fox then balked upon learning of his extension demands.

My guy, there's two accounts of the situation: one by Shams Charania and Sam Amick, in which the Kings wanted to extend Fox for the max but he said he would not, and another by jbk1234 and SkyHook, random posters on RealGM with no sources. My evidence is the account of credible reporters, yours is mere speculation by a random poster on the internet. If you're worried about weak arguments, look in the mirror.

I only see reports of him turning down the 3y, $165MM extension offered last summer. If you have a link to a report of him refusing to sign THIS particular extension when SAC could offer it, you're welcome to share it and I'll be happy to read it.

Because that was the max extension offer available until last sunday, so yeah, obviously he couldn't refuse an offer his team wasn't allowed to tender. But it was discussed ad nauseam at the time that Fox told the Kings he wouldn't extend, like for instance:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10153688-kings-gm-there-was-no-pathway-to-deaaron-fox-contract-extension-before-trade

Three days after trading De'Aaron Fox to the San Antonio Spurs in a three-team deal, Sacramento Kings general manager Monte McNair has opened up about the reasoning for moving the 27-year-old star.

McNair told reporters on Wednesday they had "no pathway to a long-term agreement" with Fox.

No pathway = no possible scenario where there could be an agreement -- not even for the max.

[jayjaysee]

Feel like anyone should agree 3yr165 is better than 4yr229. Anytime you’re overpaying, shorter is better..

Even just 5% raises (the max anyone besides SAS could give him) would’ve felt better. Probably less than 10 mil difference but the last year would’ve felt a lot better.

I still think SAS will be able to find a team to trade some value for Fox at this number. Just not much

[jbk1234]

My guy, there's two accounts of the situation: one by Shams Charania and Sam Amick, in which the Kings wanted to extend Fox for the max but he said he would not, and another by jbk1234 and SkyHook, random posters on RealGM with no sources. My evidence is the account of credible reporters, yours is mere speculation by a random poster on the internet. If you're worried about weak arguments, look in the mirror.

I only see reports of him turning down the 3y, $165MM extension offered last summer. If you have a link to a report of him refusing to sign THIS particular extension when SAC could offer it, you're welcome to share it and I'll be happy to read it.

Because that was the max extension offer available until last sunday, so yeah, obviously he couldn't refuse an offer his team wasn't allowed to tender. But it was discussed ad nauseam at the time that Fox told the Kings he wouldn't extend, like for instance:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10153688-kings-gm-there-was-no-pathway-to-deaaron-fox-contract-extension-before-trade

Three days after trading De'Aaron Fox to the San Antonio Spurs in a three-team deal, Sacramento Kings general manager Monte McNair has opened up about the reasoning for moving the 27-year-old star.

McNair told reporters on Wednesday they had "no pathway to a long-term agreement" with Fox.

No pathway = no possible scenario where there could be an agreement -- not even for the max.

That's one interpretation of what that statement means. It's not the only interpretation.

[One_and_Done]

I just compared their situation. Do you think those max deals were bad?

OG didnt sign a full max though? And I dont have the time to look up what Lewis' deal would have been in that era. Maybe there is a disconnect there; I dont see anyone saying Fox is some sort of mid-level guy by any means. But certainly some are questioning giving him the full max given his career to date. Maybe he bounces back to have a 3 or 4 more years like he did in 23. But even if he does the contract feels like its at best a fair deal and not a good value one. And if he doesnt get back to that level, he'll be really overpaid. And given the new CBA environment everyone is still working through, I'm not as confident that in 2 or 3 years big contracts for players outside the top 25 are going to be as moveable as they have been in the past. So its basically no upside for the team and they take all the downside risk. Great deal for Fox though!!

I think most people recognize this was all agreed to prior to the trade. And that it would be hard to go back on your word now with Klutch. So even if circumstances might have changed given the lottery luck, they do need to move forward with it. But I think its still more than fair to question why, even at the time of the trade, the Spurs agreed to give him the full max. Maybe other teams were interested in him? We dont know to what extent other teams were willing to do the full max. The reporting at the time started with a handful of teams and then narrowed to 'he wants the Spurs' which leads me to speculate others maybe werent as willing to do the full max and his interest cooled on them. Similar to how Jimmy only wanted Phoenix because thats who was willing to pay him the max.

Sound reasoning.

Except other teams were willing to pay Jimmy, and then did so. Jimmy's contract was always going to be shorter due to his age.

[gswhoops]

Absence of evidence for one possibility is in no way evidence of its opposite.

Watch on YouTube

(NSFW)

[wemby]

I only see reports of him turning down the 3y, $165MM extension offered last summer. If you have a link to a report of him refusing to sign THIS particular extension when SAC could offer it, you're welcome to share it and I'll be happy to read it.

Because that was the max extension offer available until last sunday, so yeah, obviously he couldn't refuse an offer his team wasn't allowed to tender. But it was discussed ad nauseam at the time that Fox told the Kings he wouldn't extend, like for instance:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10153688-kings-gm-there-was-no-pathway-to-deaaron-fox-contract-extension-before-trade

Three days after trading De'Aaron Fox to the San Antonio Spurs in a three-team deal, Sacramento Kings general manager Monte McNair has opened up about the reasoning for moving the 27-year-old star.

McNair told reporters on Wednesday they had "no pathway to a long-term agreement" with Fox.

No pathway = no possible scenario where there could be an agreement -- not even for the max.

That's one interpretation of what that statement means. It's not the only interpretation.

It is, if you use it in conjunction with everything said at the time and you are intelectually honest. I'm going to go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't pay any attention.

Let's make it simple: if you honestly believe the Kings were unwilling to give him the 4 year extension and that's why they traded him, post any evidence in that sense here, because right now you're grasping at straws but have yet to provide anything to support your speculation.

[jbk1234]

Because that was the max extension offer available until last sunday, so yeah, obviously he couldn't refuse an offer his team wasn't allowed to tender. But it was discussed ad nauseam at the time that Fox told the Kings he wouldn't extend, like for instance:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10153688-kings-gm-there-was-no-pathway-to-deaaron-fox-contract-extension-before-trade


No pathway = no possible scenario where there could be an agreement -- not even for the max.

That's one interpretation of what that statement means. It's not the only interpretation.

It is, if you use it in conjunction with everything said at the time and you are intelectually honest. I'm going to go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't pay any attention.

Let's make it simple: if you honestly believe the Kings were unwilling to give him the 4 year extension and that's why they traded him, post any evidence in that sense here, because right now you're grasping at straws but have yet to provide anything to support your speculation.

He didn't have a player option this summer. He wasn't going anywhere unless the Kings agreed. They could've offered him a max extension and dared him to turn it down. Now maybe Klutch told them he wouldn't sign a max extension and it was best not to go that route, or maybe Klutch said he'd only sign a max extension and there was nothing to negotiate on that front.

The reporting was all over the place. He wanted to play on a contender, and yet, he steered his way to a team that hadn't been to the playoffs in years. If he wanted to play for a team in TX, the Rockets were much further along than the Spurs, but perhaps less interested in giving him a max extension.

The reality is that Klutch is very good at finding clients like Fox the right landing spots. There's nothing wrong with that. It's why they get paid. It doesn't follow however that there were a handful of playoff teams ready, willing, and able to hand Fox the contract that the Spurs just did, especially if it meant clearing space to do so. I don't think it's a coincidence that Fox ended up on a team that could've signed him to that deal without having to make difficult choices.

[tmorgan]

These are all “I believes”, and there’s no conflict between any of them —

1) Fox wanted out of Sacramento
2) Sacramento was willing to give him the contract that San Antonio gave him had he stayed
3) San Antonio agreed to this contract behind the scenes when the trade was made
4) This is a stupid, bloated contract and agreeing to it was a mistake by San Antonio

Fox at PG will make the Spurs better, this year and likely next, than starting Harper or Castle as the primary ball handler would, zero doubt about that. So if the Spurs primary concern is making the playoffs right away and potentially making some noise, I can see the reasoning. The issue, other than the obvious overpay on the contract, is why is that the goal right now? And if it is, why not make another move or two towards that goal?

Player development has long been a strong suit of the Spurs organization. So maybe none of this matters. I don’t think Castle is really a point guard anyway, so he’ll be fine getting his minutes off-ball. Harper, though — that guy is a primary ball handler. His sick handle is his strongest skill, followed by getting to the rim. He needs development as a shooter, defender, and passer, certainly, but almost every rookie point guard does. He needs live reps. Fox means there’s a max of about 15 minutes a game available at point guard, assuming Castle gets zero. That’s not enough. The Spurs have a future resource allocation problem as well, because they have too many guards, Wemby, and some meh forwards. Either Fox will need to be moved, or Harper will need to be moved. It is indeed just like the Fox/Hali situation was with the Kings, except Fox’s contract is worse this time.

[One_and_Done]

Other teams like the Heat were also pursuing him though, while knowing the price they'd have to pay to get him. You can say that's an 'overpayment', but at a certain point when enough teams will offer you that amount you're really talking about your market value.

You really have a gripe with the CBA, not the Fox contract. This is what guys like Fox get on the open market.

[tmorgan]

Other teams like the Heat were also pursuing him though, while knowing the price they'd have to pay to get him. You can say that's an 'overpayment', but at a certain point when enough teams will offer you that amount you're really talking about your market value.

You really have a gripe with the CBA, not the Fox contract. This is what guys like Fox get on the open market.

I won’t even disagree with this, but the contract is still bad. Whatever the current CBA is has to be part of the process for determining an appropriate contract.

Any good-but-not-great player that ends up on a max contract is a problem right now. There are the aforementioned guys that will always be underpaid for their elite production, and a couple of guys that I see as worth just about a supermax deal but don’t provide excess value (best example — Tatum). All the other great but not superstar players on supermax contracts are overpaid — that includes Brown and Booker.

Then you have the next tier down, rare All-Star or fringe All-Star guys on 30% deals, like Fox. Overpaid for their production. Also in this group are the second contract guys on 25-30% deals that are getting paid for their potential but aren’t yet delivering at that level. This includes LaMelo, Cade, Barnes, and Franz, and starting next next year. Paolo and Chet. All are understandable contracts, but really, only Mobley and Jalen Williams have already played at a level (and been healthy enough) to be worth 30%. Those are generally gambles worth taking.

There are a lot of talented players that weren’t picked in the lottery that took some time to develop and tend to remain underpaid for what they bring to table. I mean, you can go from big contract to vet min quickly (hello, Andre Drummond), but it’s rare to go the other way (Hartenstein is one). Recognizing those players is part of building a deep, competitive roster. Some teams are a lot better at this than others.

You know. I still like Fox and enjoy watching him play. All the effort I’ve put in these last few pages doesn’t change the fact that he’s really going to help the Spurs. I question the team’s timeline choices and contract choice in this case, but Wemby is going to usher in a new golden era sooner rather than later. Hopefully overpaying Fox is just a minor, easily corrected blip on the radar as things develop.

[SkyHook]

Other teams like the Heat were also pursuing him though, while knowing the price they'd have to pay to get him. You can say that's an 'overpayment', but at a certain point when enough teams will offer you that amount you're really talking about your market value.

You really have a gripe with the CBA, not the Fox contract. This is what guys like Fox get on the open market.

I won’t even disagree with this, but the contract is still bad. Whatever the current CBA is has to be part of the process for determining an appropriate contract.

Any good-but-not-great player that ends up on a max contract is a problem right now. There are the aforementioned guys that will always be underpaid for their elite production, and a couple of guys that I see as worth just about a supermax deal but don’t provide excess value (best example — Tatum). All the other great but not superstar players on supermax contracts are overpaid — that includes Brown and Booker.

Then you have the next tier down, rare All-Star or fringe All-Star guys on 30% deals, like Fox. Overpaid for their production. Also in this group are the second contract guys on 25-30% deals that are getting paid for their potential but aren’t yet delivering at that level yet. This includes LaMelo, Cade, Barnes, and Franz, and starting next next year. Paolo and Chet. All are understandable contracts, but really, only Mobley and Jalen Williams have already played at a level (and been healthy enough) to be worth 30%. Those are generally gambles worth taking.

There are a lot of talented players that weren’t picked in the lottery that took some time to develop and tend to remain underpaid for what they bring to table. I mean, you can go from big contract to vet min quickly (hello, Andre Drummond), but it’s rare to go the other way (Hartenstein is one). Recognizing those players is part of building a deep, competitive roster. Some teams are a lot better at this than others.

You know. I still like Fox and enjoy watching him play. All the effort I’ve put in these last few pages doesn’t change the fact that he’s really going to help the Spurs. I question the team’s timeline choices and contract choice in this case, but Wemby is going to usher in a new golden era sooner rather that later. Hopefully overpaying Fox is just a minor, easily corrected blip on the radar as things develop.

Here's the TLDR for the entire thread.

[One_and_Done]

If your thesis is that most max players are overpaid because you don't like the CBA, then there's nothing to debate because we're making different points here. I'd have paid Booker and Jaylen Brown too, because that's what you have to do under this CBA.

[tmorgan]

If your thesis is that most max players are overpaid because you don't like the CBA, then there's nothing to debate because we're making different points here. I'd have paid Booker and Jaylen Brown too, because that's what you have to do under this CBA.

You just don’t get what I’m saying at all. Although it’s a pain, I really like the new CBA. It rewards strong decision-making and encourages parity. Right now, OKC is killing it due to foresight and a bunch of smart moves. But even there, the window isn’t as long as it would have been in the past, because they only have one more year before SGA, JDub and Chet use 85-90% of the cap.

As for your conclusion about Booker and Brown, we just entirely disagree. That’s fine.

[One_and_Done]

The Spurs can well afford Fox under this CBA, so I don't think there is any long term risk in that respect.

[Mavrelous]

I have Fox as a very similar player to Ingram, flawed offensive oriented player, with a defined skillset, though Fox skillset is more valuable than Ingram IMO.
They may not be a good #1 option, even as 2nd option they are questionable, but they have become underrated due to the circumstances around them, they can be very useful players in the right context.

[One_and_Done]

I have Fox as a very similar player to Ingram, flawed offensive oriented player, with a defined skillset, though Fox skillset is more valuable than Ingram IMO.
They may not be a good #1 option, even as 2nd option they are questionable, but they have become underrated due to the circumstances around them, they can be very useful players in the right context.

Fox has proven alot more than Ingram tbh.