The Andrew Wiggins Thread

[walk with me]

I don't think it's anything personal against Wiggins, but moreso just about the state of the game and how you have to be so precise with who you hitch your wagon to with these contracts if you ever want to truly become a championship contender.

Just look at the Clippers and Wizards. On an individual level, it's obvious that Blake, Deandre, John Wall, Beal and Porter are very, very good players. But neither team has really progressed in the playoffs and I truly question whether they ever will as I don't know that I see the true super star killer instinct that a title contending team needs.

When you give players like that such a big piece of your salary cap pie and they don't become that elite elite player, it's almost impossible to get over that hump. I think that's where the apprehension comes with Wiggins; not that he isn't a good player, but if he is a good enough ALL AROUND player to become a major piece on a perennial championship team.

Now what I do like is that the addition of Butler should slide Wiggins to the "#3" role on our team, and I'm much more comfortable with that than I would be with Wiggins as the 2 and Lavine as the 3. The presence of Butler should place Wiggins in a much better position to be successful.

Just my opinion.

So you'd rather suck until the team magically becomes an nba dynasty ?

[Mattya]

A game away from the Conf finals is still lights year away from a championship, dude. I'm not saying they aren't a good team, just that I really question if they can make that next step from a perennial playoff team into an actual championship contender. I see them as where Memphis was a few years back.
If you want to disagree wit h my assessment, that's fine. It's subjective, but from what I saw from Wash this playoffs did not impress me that much. Plus their depth is thin (and aging), and they have very little assets capable of being converted to another clutch player, so their Big 3 really needs to be perfect.
Again, my opinion.

And I disagree on the Clippers too. Blake hasn't been shown to be a player that can taker over a game in the clutch, Jordan has very little offensive contribution, and that has alot to do with why they've peaked out in the playoffs. Sure injuries don't help, but when their Big 3 has been together it's still not that impressive in my opinion.

Well we better give up for the next few seasons since we have no chance at reaching the finals either. If championships are the only measure of weather a player was worth his max contract then there are a whole lot of players not worth it.

The Clipper core has almost never been healthy during the playoffs.

It's not whether a player HAS a championship that matters in regards to whether they're worth the max, but about whether they project to being an elite championship stud, which is invariably a subjective assessment as I said.

Now I'll be honest I don't like the current salary structure in the NBA, but that bias is not built into my opinion here. Based on other comparable max players, the "Big3" in Wash deserve those contracts. The problem though is that I don't see any one of them as a title contending alpha #1 player, so to hitch your wagon to 3 guys like that COULD be a recipe for long term playoff appearances, but no eventual championship. As I said, like Memphis had when they hitched their wagons to ZBo/Gasol and Conley and had little leftover to fill in the gaps.
We'll see what happens with them though, and whether any of them can ever make that next step and become "The Man" like Dirk was able to do, but my opinion right now is that I don't see it.

I'm hoping we're different and that Towns or Butler can become that #1 player, in which case it makes Wiggins' max presence more palatable, but I do think that's an important thing to think about before just handing out these huge contracts to players that haven't shown yet to be complete players.

Wiggins is getting a max contract. You either control the terms or end up getting ridiculous contract structure on a max contract from another team.

[Mattya]

That was the plan before we even thought Butler was possible. I agree you have to pay, but we look at how greed has destroyed other teams, it would be prudent to make sure we can afford the players to make this team a contender.

Reminds me of the Marbury debacle. This is possible my last ride with the Wolves if this thing blows up. But for now I will enjoy the season. Guess my flexible 10 game pack will not be as flexible.

How many of these seasons are we expecting Wiggins to be the last option? Just a reminder but Wiggins is the same age now as Butler was entering the league, and Wiggins is significantly more talented as a scorer than Butler was.

I didn't say "last option."
I really hope Wiggins is a great player. But as of now he's looked at as 3rd of the core. (Just my op.) Like I said, nice problem to have, but, in two years or less, can we afford what Butler will command? I won't worry about it now, but things hardly ever go right for us. (Sorry, this is what being a Mn fan is like, always waiting for the shoe to drop.)

Well in the core you consider him the last option.

Of course they can afford it. The team has a long way to go before they have to start worrying about paying all of them. And if you determine that Wiggins isn't the right piece he is still valuable on a max contract. Victor Oladipo just netted the Thunder Paul George.

[Worm Guts]

I like the ideal of the 5 year extension, but at almost $30 mil per for a third option? Unless Thibs has other plans, I don't see him earning this kind of money. At least he hasn't yet. I get that it's a business, but after Towns next year isn't that about 50% of the cap space? Then you got Butler looking for his last big payday. Think Glen will pay the lux?

I think there has to be an assumption that you'll have to pay 3 guys if you want to win big, and I think the plan has always been to build around Wiggins and Towns.

That was the plan before we even thought Butler was possible. I agree you have to pay, but we look at how greed has destroyed other teams, it would be prudent to make sure we can afford the players to make this team a contender.

Reminds me of the Marbury debacle. This is possible my last ride with the Wolves if this thing blows up. But for now I will enjoy the season. Guess my flexible 10 game pack will not be as flexible.

This won't be like the Marbury situation, completely different situations there. There is the possibility that we get 2-3 years into Wiggins extension and becomes apparent that he shouldn't be making that type of money and it prevents us from adding help along side Towns and/or Butler.

[Oriole8159]

I don't think it's anything personal against Wiggins, but moreso just about the state of the game and how you have to be so precise with who you hitch your wagon to with these contracts if you ever want to truly become a championship contender.

Just look at the Clippers and Wizards. On an individual level, it's obvious that Blake, Deandre, John Wall, Beal and Porter are very, very good players. But neither team has really progressed in the playoffs and I truly question whether they ever will as I don't know that I see the true super star killer instinct that a title contending team needs.

When you give players like that such a big piece of your salary cap pie and they don't become that elite elite player, it's almost impossible to get over that hump. I think that's where the apprehension comes with Wiggins; not that he isn't a good player, but if he is a good enough ALL AROUND player to become a major piece on a perennial championship team.

Now what I do like is that the addition of Butler should slide Wiggins to the "#3" role on our team, and I'm much more comfortable with that than I would be with Wiggins as the 2 and Lavine as the 3. The presence of Butler should place Wiggins in a much better position to be successful.

Just my opinion.

So you'd rather suck until the team magically becomes an nba dynasty ?

No, I'm actually okay with giving Wigs the contract as our championship hopes probably hinge more on Towns/Butler becoming the #1 anyway.

But there COULD also be something to be said for seeing if he can take the necessary steps forward this year before committing to him long term before the season starts. We'll have him under restricted control after this year anyway, so we don't run the risk of losing him if we don't do the contract before the season starts. Also, the contract we can sign him too after this season probably isn't going to be that much different than the one we're looking at right now anyway, so it's not like we're signing him early in order to save money in the long term considering we're going to be over the cap anyway going forward if we re-sign him.

If he makes the steps forward, you'll be more comfortable giving him that big deal. If he doesn't though, you can still sign and trade in the offseason/trade mid season. That's risky obviously because it can blow up if you don't guess right on the young prospects/draft picks you bring in, but it's also risky to give a guy $150 million without him showing that he's making visible steps into becoming an all around player after a year and a half minimum under Thibs.

Trading him allows us to extend our window and create more cap flexibility to try and make up the difference and find a new #3 that may compliment Towns/Butler more going forward. It worked for SA when they knew they wouldn't re-sign George Hill but were able to turn him into Kawhi Leonard, which hugely extended their window. It didn't work for OKC when they were less successful with their pieces from the Harden trade.

To come round circle though, I'm okay with the Wiggins extension, but I think there's also something to be said for making him "earn it" this year too.

[Slim Tubby]

I think there has to be an assumption that you'll have to pay 3 guys if you want to win big, and I think the plan has always been to build around Wiggins and Towns.

That was the plan before we even thought Butler was possible. I agree you have to pay, but we look at how greed has destroyed other teams, it would be prudent to make sure we can afford the players to make this team a contender.

Reminds me of the Marbury debacle. This is possible my last ride with the Wolves if this thing blows up. But for now I will enjoy the season. Guess my flexible 10 game pack will not be as flexible.

This won't be like the Marbury situation, completely different situations there. There is the possibility that we get 2-3 years into Wiggins extension and becomes apparent that he shouldn't be making that type of money and it prevents us from adding help along side Towns and/or Butler.

Excellent point but I think people really underestimate the fact that Wiggy is only 22 years old and already averages 24ppg. We all know what his weaknesses are but we haven't seen anything that suggests that Andrew isn't capable of improving in those areas. Butler and Gibson will certainly help hide his flaws. We always seem to covet the puppy on the other side of the glass when we already have a great dog that poops in our yard.

[Oriole8159]

Well we better give up for the next few seasons since we have no chance at reaching the finals either. If championships are the only measure of weather a player was worth his max contract then there are a whole lot of players not worth it.

The Clipper core has almost never been healthy during the playoffs.

It's not whether a player HAS a championship that matters in regards to whether they're worth the max, but about whether they project to being an elite championship stud, which is invariably a subjective assessment as I said.

Now I'll be honest I don't like the current salary structure in the NBA, but that bias is not built into my opinion here. Based on other comparable max players, the "Big3" in Wash deserve those contracts. The problem though is that I don't see any one of them as a title contending alpha #1 player, so to hitch your wagon to 3 guys like that COULD be a recipe for long term playoff appearances, but no eventual championship. As I said, like Memphis had when they hitched their wagons to ZBo/Gasol and Conley and had little leftover to fill in the gaps.
We'll see what happens with them though, and whether any of them can ever make that next step and become "The Man" like Dirk was able to do, but my opinion right now is that I don't see it.

I'm hoping we're different and that Towns or Butler can become that #1 player, in which case it makes Wiggins' max presence more palatable, but I do think that's an important thing to think about before just handing out these huge contracts to players that haven't shown yet to be complete players.

Wiggins is getting a max contract. You either control the terms or end up getting ridiculous contract structure on a max contract from another team.

and I get that he is going to get that; alot of this though is coming from my built in disliking of the existing NBA structure vs. Wiggins an an individual.

I'd be in favor of the idea where players can go directly to the NBA out of high school, but if they agree to defer that they must be 2 or 3 years out of high school. That way teams aren't forced to having to be saddled to $100-$150 million contracts for guys that they're still not sure of becoming complete, all around players. I'm a free market fan so I think there has to be a mechanism to allow players to capitalize on their own ability if they truly are the best of the best, but I no longer think that you can get a full idea of a player's prime prospects at 21 or 22 years old either, so the system is no longer protecting the owner's interest's either.

[Mattya]

It's not whether a player HAS a championship that matters in regards to whether they're worth the max, but about whether they project to being an elite championship stud, which is invariably a subjective assessment as I said.

Now I'll be honest I don't like the current salary structure in the NBA, but that bias is not built into my opinion here. Based on other comparable max players, the "Big3" in Wash deserve those contracts. The problem though is that I don't see any one of them as a title contending alpha #1 player, so to hitch your wagon to 3 guys like that COULD be a recipe for long term playoff appearances, but no eventual championship. As I said, like Memphis had when they hitched their wagons to ZBo/Gasol and Conley and had little leftover to fill in the gaps.
We'll see what happens with them though, and whether any of them can ever make that next step and become "The Man" like Dirk was able to do, but my opinion right now is that I don't see it.

I'm hoping we're different and that Towns or Butler can become that #1 player, in which case it makes Wiggins' max presence more palatable, but I do think that's an important thing to think about before just handing out these huge contracts to players that haven't shown yet to be complete players.

Wiggins is getting a max contract. You either control the terms or end up getting ridiculous contract structure on a max contract from another team.

and I get that he is going to get that; alot of this though is coming from my built in disliking of the existing NBA structure vs. Wiggins an an individual.

I'd be in favor of the idea where players can go directly to the NBA out of high school, but if they agree to defer that they must be 2 or 3 years out of high school. That way teams aren't forced to having to be saddled to $100-$150 million contracts for guys that they're still not sure of becoming complete, all around players. I'm a free market fan so I think there has to be a mechanism to allow players to capitalize on their own ability if they truly are the best of the best, but I no longer think that you can get a full idea of a player's prime prospects at 21 or 22 years old either, so the system is no longer protecting the owner's interest's either.

I'm not sure how that would have changed Wiggins situation. He would have been the top pick the draft before, and would have dominated even more at Kansas if he stayed and missed out on development at the NBA level.

[KGdaBom]

That was the plan before we even thought Butler was possible. I agree you have to pay, but we look at how greed has destroyed other teams, it would be prudent to make sure we can afford the players to make this team a contender.

Reminds me of the Marbury debacle. This is possible my last ride with the Wolves if this thing blows up. But for now I will enjoy the season. Guess my flexible 10 game pack will not be as flexible.

How many of these seasons are we expecting Wiggins to be the last option? Just a reminder but Wiggins is the same age now as Butler was entering the league, and Wiggins is significantly more talented as a scorer than Butler was.

I didn't say "last option."
I really hope Wiggins is a great player. But as of now he's looked at as 3rd of the core. (Just my op.) Like I said, nice problem to have, but, in two years or less, can we afford what Butler will command? I won't worry about it now, but things hardly ever go right for us. (Sorry, this is what being a Mn fan is like, always waiting for the shoe to drop.)

Of course we can afford to pay Butler the Max available. He is a top player in the league and easily worth it.

[KGdaBom]

A game away from the Conf finals is still lights year away from a championship, dude. I'm not saying they aren't a good team, just that I really question if they can make that next step from a perennial playoff team into an actual championship contender. I see them as where Memphis was a few years back.
If you want to disagree wit h my assessment, that's fine. It's subjective, but from what I saw from Wash this playoffs did not impress me that much. Plus their depth is thin (and aging), and they have very little assets capable of being converted to another clutch player, so their Big 3 really needs to be perfect.
Again, my opinion.

And I disagree on the Clippers too. Blake hasn't been shown to be a player that can taker over a game in the clutch, Jordan has very little offensive contribution, and that has alot to do with why they've peaked out in the playoffs. Sure injuries don't help, but when their Big 3 has been together it's still not that impressive in my opinion.

The 5 year $148 million for Wiggins is done with the idea that you are getting a continuously better player each and every one of those years. If he can improve as one would hope for a 22 year old player going to 27 he should be well worth the money.

and I get that, but that's also what's wrong with the NBA salary cap in my opinion.
You're hanging your future on the hope that your player maxes out their "ALL AROUND" game and doesn't linger as just a very good individual player. Because if they don't, you really leave yourself thin from a cap standpoint to make up the difference. See Memphis with ZBo/Gasol and Conley as example.

And I say this as someone that likes Wiggins.

Any long term contract a team signs a player to involves speculation on that player for the duration of the contract. I was thinking Wiggins was 22 somebody said 21. I think that makes him younger than Dunn coming in to the league last year. You can expect a player at this age to get MUCH better over the next five years. It's not guaranteed, but it's quite likely to happen.

[Oriole8159]

Wiggins is getting a max contract. You either control the terms or end up getting ridiculous contract structure on a max contract from another team.

and I get that he is going to get that; alot of this though is coming from my built in disliking of the existing NBA structure vs. Wiggins an an individual.

I'd be in favor of the idea where players can go directly to the NBA out of high school, but if they agree to defer that they must be 2 or 3 years out of high school. That way teams aren't forced to having to be saddled to $100-$150 million contracts for guys that they're still not sure of becoming complete, all around players. I'm a free market fan so I think there has to be a mechanism to allow players to capitalize on their own ability if they truly are the best of the best, but I no longer think that you can get a full idea of a player's prime prospects at 21 or 22 years old either, so the system is no longer protecting the owner's interest's either.

I'm not sure how that would have changed Wiggins situation. He would have been the top pick the draft before, and would have dominated even more at Kansas if he stayed and missed out on development at the NBA level.

and if he stayed in school and dominated at Kansas and refinded his game more, he could come into the league and not have to wait 3 years still for his team to know truly what type of player he really is. Just look at how dominant Tim Duncan was his rookie year. That's a far better way to ensure parody for teams picking so early.

you're probably right though that Wigs isn't the case study for this as he would have been one of the guys to come out of high school, but it would do a helluva lot of good for the teams that routinely got burned on one and dones in the past decade. And I don't necessarily mean the guy busted like Anthony Bennett, but could just as much mean the team HAD to give him a good sized 2nd contract just to keep him under team control to see what he could become. Port is perfect examples of that with Meyers Leonard and Mo Harkless. But if teams picking in the lottery don't need to guess so much on these guys' potential, they'll be far more likely to become better.

[Oriole8159]

The 5 year $148 million for Wiggins is done with the idea that you are getting a continuously better player each and every one of those years. If he can improve as one would hope for a 22 year old player going to 27 he should be well worth the money.

and I get that, but that's also what's wrong with the NBA salary cap in my opinion.
You're hanging your future on the hope that your player maxes out their "ALL AROUND" game and doesn't linger as just a very good individual player. Because if they don't, you really leave yourself thin from a cap standpoint to make up the difference. See Memphis with ZBo/Gasol and Conley as example.

And I say this as someone that likes Wiggins.

Any long term contract a team signs a player to involves speculation on that player for the duration of the contract. I was thinking Wiggins was 22 somebody said 21. I think that makes him younger than Dunn coming in to the league last year. You can expect a player at this age to get MUCH better over the next five years. It's not guaranteed, but it's quite likely to happen.

and I'm fine with taking risk, but when we're talking about 35% (or whatever the percentage ends up being) of your entire cap, then I think it's okay to start questioning the system.

[Mattya]

and I get that he is going to get that; alot of this though is coming from my built in disliking of the existing NBA structure vs. Wiggins an an individual.

I'd be in favor of the idea where players can go directly to the NBA out of high school, but if they agree to defer that they must be 2 or 3 years out of high school. That way teams aren't forced to having to be saddled to $100-$150 million contracts for guys that they're still not sure of becoming complete, all around players. I'm a free market fan so I think there has to be a mechanism to allow players to capitalize on their own ability if they truly are the best of the best, but I no longer think that you can get a full idea of a player's prime prospects at 21 or 22 years old either, so the system is no longer protecting the owner's interest's either.

I'm not sure how that would have changed Wiggins situation. He would have been the top pick the draft before, and would have dominated even more at Kansas if he stayed and missed out on development at the NBA level.

and if he stayed in school and dominated at Kansas and refinded his game more, he could come into the league and not have to wait 3 years still for his team to know truly what type of player he really is. Just look at how dominant Tim Duncan was his rookie year. That's a far better way to ensure parody for teams picking so early.

you're probably right though that Wigs isn't the case study for this as he would have been one of the guys to come out of high school, but it would do a helluva lot of good for the teams that routinely got burned on one and dones in the past decade. And I don't necessarily mean the guy busted like Anthony Bennett, but could just as much mean the team HAD to give him a good sized 2nd contract just to keep him under team control to see what he could become. Port is perfect examples of that with Meyers Leonard and Mo Harkless. But if teams picking in the lottery don't need to guess so much on these guys' potential, they'll be far more likely to become better.

Or he would be less refined than he is now.

Anthony Bennet isn't a good example either. Was anybody not shocked the he was the top pick? I don't think anyone had him any higher than the Bobcats pick. He is still a bust but I think the massive expectations and criticisms when he struggled completely ruined that guy's mind.

The Harkless and Leonard situations really aren't comparable to Wiggins though. I think Harkless has a good contract, but Leonard just hasn't been good.

Even if they had to stay in college later, teams still have a lot of guessing. Even really good college players picked later in the draft turn out terrible.

[Mattya]

and I get that, but that's also what's wrong with the NBA salary cap in my opinion.
You're hanging your future on the hope that your player maxes out their "ALL AROUND" game and doesn't linger as just a very good individual player. Because if they don't, you really leave yourself thin from a cap standpoint to make up the difference. See Memphis with ZBo/Gasol and Conley as example.

And I say this as someone that likes Wiggins.

Any long term contract a team signs a player to involves speculation on that player for the duration of the contract. I was thinking Wiggins was 22 somebody said 21. I think that makes him younger than Dunn coming in to the league last year. You can expect a player at this age to get MUCH better over the next five years. It's not guaranteed, but it's quite likely to happen.

and I'm fine with taking risk, but when we're talking about 35% (or whatever the percentage ends up being) of your entire cap, then I think it's okay to start questioning the system.

What is the alternative? I don't see any system change that would result in Wiggins getting paid less.

[Oriole8159]

I'm not sure how that would have changed Wiggins situation. He would have been the top pick the draft before, and would have dominated even more at Kansas if he stayed and missed out on development at the NBA level.

and if he stayed in school and dominated at Kansas and refinded his game more, he could come into the league and not have to wait 3 years still for his team to know truly what type of player he really is. Just look at how dominant Tim Duncan was his rookie year. That's a far better way to ensure parody for teams picking so early.

you're probably right though that Wigs isn't the case study for this as he would have been one of the guys to come out of high school, but it would do a helluva lot of good for the teams that routinely got burned on one and dones in the past decade. And I don't necessarily mean the guy busted like Anthony Bennett, but could just as much mean the team HAD to give him a good sized 2nd contract just to keep him under team control to see what he could become. Port is perfect examples of that with Meyers Leonard and Mo Harkless. But if teams picking in the lottery don't need to guess so much on these guys' potential, they'll be far more likely to become better.

Or he would be less refined than he is now.

Anthony Bennet isn't a good example either. Was anybody not shocked the he was the top pick? I don't think anyone had him any higher than the Bobcats pick. He is still a bust but I think the massive expectations and criticisms when he struggled completely ruined that guy's mind.

The Harkless and Leonard situations really aren't comparable to Wiggins though. I think Harkless has a good contract, but Leonard just hasn't been good.

Even if they had to stay in college later, teams still have a lot of guessing. Even really good college players picked later in the draft turn out terrible.

I think Wigs would be more refined in multiple years at Kansas than he would have been coming into the league after 1 year. I get that it's never going to be a perfect system, but it would increase the level of competition in college (and I say this as someone who also hates the NCAA so by no means do I want to do them any favors) so Wigs would have to raise his all around game, which would make him better equipped to help his new NBA team year 1. That's one less year that the team wastes on his development before they have to commit to $100 million + contract.

And you're right on Bennett in a vacuum, but go down the list of guys that he was up against that year... Porter (soph), Zeller (soph), Len (soph), Noel (fr), McLemore (fr), Caldwell-Pope (soph), Burke (soph). The only upperclassman in the Top 9 was Oladipo, and many say Orl picked him because he was at least safe and less risky. So Bennett ended up being the wrong guess obviously, but all the other players were just as big guesses.

I know there's not a way to eliminate the guessing entirely, and I'm not expecting that there should be as this is business and they're big boys, but I just don't think the system is working in the owner's favor anymore, and it's a big problem for parody.
It's very hard to nail a Durant/Westbrook/Harden, or luck into #1 picks back to back years like we did, while still guessing right on a Fr in Lavine at 13. Most teams that languish in the lottery, especially small market teams that aren't attractive for FAs, have such a small chance of actually organically building a championship roster, and it doesn't help that they have to start committing over 30% of their available cap to players that they aren't really sure of what they have.

[KGdaBom]

and I get that, but that's also what's wrong with the NBA salary cap in my opinion.
You're hanging your future on the hope that your player maxes out their "ALL AROUND" game and doesn't linger as just a very good individual player. Because if they don't, you really leave yourself thin from a cap standpoint to make up the difference. See Memphis with ZBo/Gasol and Conley as example.

And I say this as someone that likes Wiggins.

Any long term contract a team signs a player to involves speculation on that player for the duration of the contract. I was thinking Wiggins was 22 somebody said 21. I think that makes him younger than Dunn coming in to the league last year. You can expect a player at this age to get MUCH better over the next five years. It's not guaranteed, but it's quite likely to happen.

and I'm fine with taking risk, but when we're talking about 35% (or whatever the percentage ends up being) of your entire cap, then I think it's okay to start questioning the system.

We are talking 25% of our cap. Towns if he makes an all NBA team I think will qualify for 30%. Yes the system puts teams in a very high stakes gambling on the come situation.

[KGdaBom]

I'm not sure how that would have changed Wiggins situation. He would have been the top pick the draft before, and would have dominated even more at Kansas if he stayed and missed out on development at the NBA level.

and if he stayed in school and dominated at Kansas and refinded his game more, he could come into the league and not have to wait 3 years still for his team to know truly what type of player he really is. Just look at how dominant Tim Duncan was his rookie year. That's a far better way to ensure parody for teams picking so early.

you're probably right though that Wigs isn't the case study for this as he would have been one of the guys to come out of high school, but it would do a helluva lot of good for the teams that routinely got burned on one and dones in the past decade. And I don't necessarily mean the guy busted like Anthony Bennett, but could just as much mean the team HAD to give him a good sized 2nd contract just to keep him under team control to see what he could become. Port is perfect examples of that with Meyers Leonard and Mo Harkless. But if teams picking in the lottery don't need to guess so much on these guys' potential, they'll be far more likely to become better.

Or he would be less refined than he is now.

Anthony Bennet isn't a good example either. Was anybody not shocked the he was the top pick? I don't think anyone had him any higher than the Bobcats pick. He is still a bust but I think the massive expectations and criticisms when he struggled completely ruined that guy's mind.

The Harkless and Leonard situations really aren't comparable to Wiggins though. I think Harkless has a good contract, but Leonard just hasn't been good.

Even if they had to stay in college later, teams still have a lot of guessing. Even really good college players picked later in the draft turn out terrible.

IE Kris Dunn. I know he still has a chance, but he was supposed to be super NBA ready.

[Oriole8159]

Any long term contract a team signs a player to involves speculation on that player for the duration of the contract. I was thinking Wiggins was 22 somebody said 21. I think that makes him younger than Dunn coming in to the league last year. You can expect a player at this age to get MUCH better over the next five years. It's not guaranteed, but it's quite likely to happen.

and I'm fine with taking risk, but when we're talking about 35% (or whatever the percentage ends up being) of your entire cap, then I think it's okay to start questioning the system.

What is the alternative? I don't see any system change that would result in Wiggins getting paid less.

you could go completely uncapped, which would at least allow you more flexibility to add better role players around your perceived stars if they don't hit their max potential.
you could increase the super max even more so true true star players got an even higher amount of the pie, which would help disburse the talent across the league. If the Butler trade never happened, we'd probably extend Lavine and the combined annual salaries of Lavine and Wiggins would be higher than the salary for just Steph Curry, which is crazy. It would be much harder for "super teams" to be put together, and teams could actually make the decision about whether to invest in multiple "lesser stars" like Wiggins and Lavine or go with a few big big stars with lesser talent around them.

I now neither of those are perfect either but to be honest, it's not necessarily my job to come up with the solution. I'm just a rube like all the rest of us, so I don't necessarily have to have the solution before I can identify that there's a problem.

[Oriole8159]

Any long term contract a team signs a player to involves speculation on that player for the duration of the contract. I was thinking Wiggins was 22 somebody said 21. I think that makes him younger than Dunn coming in to the league last year. You can expect a player at this age to get MUCH better over the next five years. It's not guaranteed, but it's quite likely to happen.

and I'm fine with taking risk, but when we're talking about 35% (or whatever the percentage ends up being) of your entire cap, then I think it's okay to start questioning the system.

We are talking 25% of our cap. Towns if he makes an all NBA team I think will qualify for 30%. Yes the system puts teams in a very high stakes gambling on the come situation.

thanks for clarifying the exact number; still a high percentage though.

[Oriole8159]

and if he stayed in school and dominated at Kansas and refinded his game more, he could come into the league and not have to wait 3 years still for his team to know truly what type of player he really is. Just look at how dominant Tim Duncan was his rookie year. That's a far better way to ensure parody for teams picking so early.

you're probably right though that Wigs isn't the case study for this as he would have been one of the guys to come out of high school, but it would do a helluva lot of good for the teams that routinely got burned on one and dones in the past decade. And I don't necessarily mean the guy busted like Anthony Bennett, but could just as much mean the team HAD to give him a good sized 2nd contract just to keep him under team control to see what he could become. Port is perfect examples of that with Meyers Leonard and Mo Harkless. But if teams picking in the lottery don't need to guess so much on these guys' potential, they'll be far more likely to become better.

Or he would be less refined than he is now.

Anthony Bennet isn't a good example either. Was anybody not shocked the he was the top pick? I don't think anyone had him any higher than the Bobcats pick. He is still a bust but I think the massive expectations and criticisms when he struggled completely ruined that guy's mind.

The Harkless and Leonard situations really aren't comparable to Wiggins though. I think Harkless has a good contract, but Leonard just hasn't been good.

Even if they had to stay in college later, teams still have a lot of guessing. Even really good college players picked later in the draft turn out terrible.

IE Kris Dunn. I know he still has a chance, but he was supposed to be super NBA ready.

I did figure that would be the go to response. That's obviously going to happen still, but perhaps if the remainder of college basketball teams were better because of this (which they would be), then players like Dunn would be exposed more and his stock would be more inline with where it should be.