Report: MIA extends Josh Richardson ($42M/4yrs)

[GoBobs]

Will be a good contract before the deal is over, baring injury. Solid player with sky high character. Hard to overstate the value of that in a locker room.

[HoopsMalone]

I think Miami has done an okay job putting together a lot of solid rotation pieces at PALATABLE cap numbers.

Now they just need to somehow spring a consolidation trade for a star. Because you don't make deep runs in the playoffs with just depth.

Sent from my SM-N920V using RealGM mobile app

[abark]

But why invest 204 million dollars over the next four years in a core of Richardson, Olynk, Johnson and Waiters? That screams treadmill

It's not fair to lump all of those players together. I said in my original post that MIA did a poor job this offseason, but Richardson isn't part of the problem.

Olynyk is 26; Johnson is 30; Waiters is 25. None of these guys have any upside (i don't expect Waiters to play as well as he did last year), but they got long term money.

I would have skipped Olynyk entirely since I don't really think there's much difference between Olynyk and say, Mo Speights or Mike Muscala. Hell, you can probably get Channing Frye for free and those are short term risks. Johnson and Justise Winslow should be getting more PF minutes and Olynyk is a sieve on defense, so how much can you really use him? I just don't see the point.

Johnson is 30 y/o and played far above his career norms, there's no reason to go 3yrs / $43M for him.

Basically, the HEAT locked themselves into this roster and the ceiling is . . . maybe the 4th seed?

Johnson, Olynyk, and Waiters - how many teams would take any of those contracts for free?

I agree that we have locked ourselves into an above average treadmill type team. But I disagree that any of the contracts given out were actually bad contracts.

Johnson averaged 17/ 6.5/ 5 per 36 minutes, to go along with great defense. He was as impactful as anyone on the team when he was on the court. He played far above his career norms because he got in shape for the first time in his career. And unlike Waiters, he performed consistently enough that there is little chance this was a fluke.

Spo made a mistake only giving him 27 mpg last year. When he finally started the last 5 games of the season, he put up 18/ 7/ 5.5. He could be a borderline all star, on a level similar to Dragic and Whiteside, if he starts next year.

Also, you are calling Richardson young and acting like he has potential, even though he turns 24 tomorrow. If that's the case then Olynyk and Waiters should not be looked at THAT much differently.

And Olynyk is not a defensive seive. He has had a positive defensive box +/- every year of his career. He is not a rim protector, due to his short wingspan, but he is much more mobile than he gets credit for. Just look at this article on his pick and roll defense.
https://www.hothothoops.com/2017/9/12/16294654/overlooked-strength-kelly-olynyk-brings-miami-heat-james-johnson-hassan-whiteside-luke-babbitt

I think we could find a team that would take every single one of our contracts for free, except for Tyler Johnson when his contract balloons from 6 to 20 million from the poison pill.

And our team was going over the cap once TJ got his salary boost, so it's not like going with a cheaper option than Olynyk would have done anything besides save the owner money. We would have had to let at least 3 of these guys go to make much difference.

This was our only chance to sign a big FA with this core. After missing out on Hayward, our two options were to completely blow it up (while missing 2 of our next 3 1st round draft picks), or go all in with a team that went 30-11 to finish the year.

Neither option was ideal, but Riley definitely went all in on one of them.

[Heat3]

To those criticizing, what options did the heat have to get better faster? Is it getting them near GSW level faster than 4 years? If your plan is tank for 4 years then you have no plan. Playoff contender every year sounds pretty good to me unless someone can guarantee their plan yields better results.

[phraoh]

I think its an okay contract for an okay player. He is a valuable piece to Heat's team. That said, in looking at the overall picture, Heat is a capped out team with okay players with okay contracts. Not thinking that is the best situation to be in.

[matt6715]

Locked into a bunch of mediocre players

[Flash4thewin]

Riley coming up with half assed product in miami, for all the praising he's had as one of the best gm's this and that he kinda sucks right now

miami heat offseason in one gif basically

Spoiler:

Outsiders can see it that way, most if not all Heat fans are pretty happy with this core to be honest.

I wouldn’t go that far. If you believe the team of the second half of the season is the real deal you are content. ( Mind you when push came to shove hey where incapable of winning out and making the playoffs, instead going into the lottery)

If you think the second half was an illusion then you can’t help but look at this off-season with disappointment.

How many time have we heard give Pat cap space and he will bring in whales. Durant said no thank you, Hayward said no thank you. Harden took more money from the rockets preventing him from even entering the market. Looking at this objectively this offseason has been nothing short of a disappointment for the Heat unless you like being a treadmill team and just making the playoffs is a success. Basically we will be the Atlanta Heat 2.0

[TTP]

But why invest 204 million dollars over the next four years in a core of Richardson, Olynk, Johnson and Waiters? That screams treadmill

I'm not sure why everyone is praising this deal. The Heat have a ton of money tied to a bunch of role players.

Reasonable deals that can be traded if a star player becomes available. And with the Warriors, the next few years don't matter so why not put a competitive roster on the court.

That player option on the end will make the contract far less tradeable the closer you get to the end of the deal.

Also I disagree with the logic of the last sentence. Having a chance to win a championship gives you more incentive to compete than not having a chance. Similarly, not having a chance to win a championship gives you more incentive to tank (because you are sacrificing less).

[TTP]

Reasonable deals that can be traded if a star player becomes available. And with the Warriors, the next few years don't matter so why not put a competitive roster on the court.

Wait what?

None of these contracts will do ANYTHING towards acquiring a "star player" and if anything it will hurt there chances more than benefit them.

I disagree. A player that outperforms his contract is a positive asset, which is useful in a trade. Jae Crowder wasn't the certain piece of the Kyrie trade, but pretty much every trade rumor surrounding the Celtics included the other teams asking for him to be in it, because he was such a good value.

Conversely, garbage like Joakim Noah is a negative asset and that DOES clog your ability to bring in stars - it eats up the cap and it can't be sent out, making any incoming stuff harder to fit in.

Trade assets are about aggregating positive value, afterall

It's going to be almost impossible for Richardson to outperform his contract because of the player option. If he's worth more than the amount he's due to be paid in the last year of his deal, he opts out and is worth nothing. If he's worth less, he's worth less than nothing and would be a negative asset.

[spicy6]

If he can develop into a very capable 3 and D guy capable of starting and giving you about 15 ppg thatll work, problem is Winslow is starting and so is waiters most likely so 10.5 million for a guy of the bench seems meh.

[HeatIn5]

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1615007

[OptionZero]

Wait what?

None of these contracts will do ANYTHING towards acquiring a "star player" and if anything it will hurt there chances more than benefit them.

I disagree. A player that outperforms his contract is a positive asset, which is useful in a trade. Jae Crowder wasn't the certain piece of the Kyrie trade, but pretty much every trade rumor surrounding the Celtics included the other teams asking for him to be in it, because he was such a good value.

Conversely, garbage like Joakim Noah is a negative asset and that DOES clog your ability to bring in stars - it eats up the cap and it can't be sent out, making any incoming stuff harder to fit in.

Trade assets are about aggregating positive value, afterall

It's going to be almost impossible for Richardson to outperform his contract because of the player option. If he's worth more than the amount he's due to be paid in the last year of his deal, he opts out and is worth nothing. If he's worth less, he's worth less than nothing and would be a negative asset.

The option is the 4th year, so they'll have THIS year left on his rookie deal and three more guaranteed years after that.

I don't know what you mean Richardson not being able to outperform his contract, as his production in any of those four years could easily outstrip the remaining rookie year deal and the $10.5M each for three years.

They'll either be getting quality 3&D play at below market rate OR they'll be able to peddle that contract in a trade package for something as a positive asset.

Four years of production is quite a long time.

This passes Danny Leroux's "Nene" test of any new contract - could you trade it without giving up something extra to convince someone to take it? I am certain any team with $10.5M in space those years would love to have Richardson

[Zasterror]

Richardson is a really good young talent who can play 1-3, excellent length/wingspan, decent ball-handler, pretty good 3-point shooter, and great defender with a motor. He was held back tremendously last season by an MCL injury he suffered during the off-season that lingered all season long. He lacked the explosiveness and athleticism that he showed in his rookie season but still posted up respectable numbers last season, he just have to get back to being efficient and continue to be able to create his own shot consistently.

Great value deal for a young player who the Heat groomed and loved since his draft day. He may never be a star player but he's definitely a valuable piece if he continues his progression and stay healthy.

[Jody Smokz]

Pat Riley knows what he's doing. If healthy Miami is easily a competitive playoff team. Not sure why people are so critical. The Warriors are winning next year anyway. Pat wants to have a competitive team and environment. If the players overplay their deals they can be traded with picks for a star. The team of full of hungry guys.

[TTP]

I disagree. A player that outperforms his contract is a positive asset, which is useful in a trade. Jae Crowder wasn't the certain piece of the Kyrie trade, but pretty much every trade rumor surrounding the Celtics included the other teams asking for him to be in it, because he was such a good value.

Conversely, garbage like Joakim Noah is a negative asset and that DOES clog your ability to bring in stars - it eats up the cap and it can't be sent out, making any incoming stuff harder to fit in.

Trade assets are about aggregating positive value, afterall

It's going to be almost impossible for Richardson to outperform his contract because of the player option. If he's worth more than the amount he's due to be paid in the last year of his deal, he opts out and is worth nothing. If he's worth less, he's worth less than nothing and would be a negative asset.

The option is the 4th year, so they'll have THIS year left on his rookie deal and three more guaranteed years after that.

I don't know what you mean Richardson not being able to outperform his contract, as his production in any of those four years could easily outstrip the remaining rookie year deal and the $10.5M each for three years.

They'll either be getting quality 3&D play at below market rate OR they'll be able to peddle that contract in a trade package for something as a positive asset.

Four years of production is quite a long time.

This passes Danny Leroux's "Nene" test of any new contract - could you trade it without giving up something extra to convince someone to take it? I am certain any team with $10.5M in space those years would love to have Richardson

It doesn't make sense to include his rookie year when analyzing the extension. We should only be analyzing the chance of being positive value from the start of the extension (because the value provided from the last year of his rookie deal doesn't change regardless of what he's paid after).

I don't understand what you're saying though. The 4 year deal kicks in a year from now after the rookie deal ends. The 4th of those 4 years is a player option.

Player options are negative value for teams, so theoretically, if one thinks the overall trade is for market value, the team gets the player for slightly below market value per year to offset the negative freeroll of the player option (Richardson would need more money per year to agree to a deal without the player option). The closer you get to the end of the deal, the fewer of these positive value years remain and it's possible the deal becomes a negative value as the threat of the player option looms. The only way this changes is if the variables change and the player experiences a significant increase in skill and the player option is declined.

[OptionZero]

But why invest 204 million dollars over the next four years in a core of Richardson, Olynk, Johnson and Waiters? That screams treadmill

It's not fair to lump all of those players together. I said in my original post that MIA did a poor job this offseason, but Richardson isn't part of the problem.

Olynyk is 26; Johnson is 30; Waiters is 25. None of these guys have any upside (i don't expect Waiters to play as well as he did last year), but they got long term money.

I would have skipped Olynyk entirely since I don't really think there's much difference between Olynyk and say, Mo Speights or Mike Muscala. Hell, you can probably get Channing Frye for free and those are short term risks. Johnson and Justise Winslow should be getting more PF minutes and Olynyk is a sieve on defense, so how much can you really use him? I just don't see the point.

Johnson is 30 y/o and played far above his career norms, there's no reason to go 3yrs / $43M for him.

Basically, the HEAT locked themselves into this roster and the ceiling is . . . maybe the 4th seed?

Johnson, Olynyk, and Waiters - how many teams would take any of those contracts for free?

I agree that we have locked ourselves into an above average treadmill type team. But I disagree that any of the contracts given out were actually bad contracts.

Johnson averaged 17/ 6.5/ 5 per 36 minutes, to go along with great defense. He was as impactful as anyone on the team when he was on the court. He played far above his career norms because he got in shape for the first time in his career. And unlike Waiters, he performed consistently enough that there is little chance this was a fluke.

Spo made a mistake only giving him 27 mpg last year. When he finally started the last 5 games of the season, he put up 18/ 7/ 5.5. He could be a borderline all star, on a level similar to Dragic and Whiteside, if he starts next year.

Also, you are calling Richardson young and acting like he has potential, even though he turns 24 tomorrow. If that's the case then Olynyk and Waiters should not be looked at THAT much differently.

And Olynyk is not a defensive seive. He has had a positive defensive box +/- every year of his career. He is not a rim protector, due to his short wingspan, but he is much more mobile than he gets credit for. Just look at this article on his pick and roll defense.
https://www.hothothoops.com/2017/9/12/16294654/overlooked-strength-kelly-olynyk-brings-miami-heat-james-johnson-hassan-whiteside-luke-babbitt

I think we could find a team that would take every single one of our contracts for free, except for Tyler Johnson when his contract balloons from 6 to 20 million from the poison pill.

And our team was going over the cap once TJ got his salary boost, so it's not like going with a cheaper option than Olynyk would have done anything besides save the owner money. We would have had to let at least 3 of these guys go to make much difference.

This was our only chance to sign a big FA with this core. After missing out on Hayward, our two options were to completely blow it up (while missing 2 of our next 3 1st round draft picks), or go all in with a team that went 30-11 to finish the year.

Neither option was ideal, but Riley definitely went all in on one of them.

Johnson shot 34% from 3P last year - thats maybe a hair above league average and that was STILL by far the highest mark of his career. He's never shown the ability to be a fulltime 3, he's best at 4, and perhaps his greatest role is to be a poor man's Draymond Green at the 5. He's 30 years old - keeping him is fine, but why for three years? Was there competition for him at that price/years? I believe Utah was the only other team in the running, and they certainly backed off at that contract range

The problem with Olynyk's signing is tied to Johnson. Where's he gonna play? Whiteside is making $20M/year, he's gonna start (i didn't like that contract either). Johnson's getting paid, his best spot is the 4. You drafted Adebayo, you still have Winslow, who frankly should be getting the chance to do some of what Johnson did? Olynyk will never be a starter, he's making too much for a reserve, you got other guys who need minutes in the front court.

Waiters is 25, but he's been in the league 5 years, we know what he is. He also had, by far, the best 3P% of his career. And the Heat already have Tyler Johnson as a reserve guard, making that spike in his contract.

I'd be terrified that so many dudes had career performances and thats what the team is paying for.

I'm gonna completely disagree that you can move those contracts. No one wants Johnson's contract; we didn't hear anyone lining up to pay Olynyk, and there's a reason Waiters was available for $3M in the first place He wasn't exactly endearing himself to teams.

There's no superstar talent on this team; overpaying for middle rotation guys is how you get stuck; the Heat just did exactly what Portland did - overspending to keep together a team that had a second half surge, with no upside to even be a conference finalist (unless injuries kill another team/teams)


While the Johnson spike did create a window for using cap space, that does not mean you are required to use it because you get stuck with long term money. Portland would have been better off letting a couple of their guys go and foregoing that window of cap space, because they'd have way more flexibility

If you are a championship level team like GSW, or even CLE, you pay to keep the team together; if you're not, there's no point in overpaying bench guys

I would have skipped Olynyk all together, kept ONE of Johnson/Waiters, done the Richardson extension, and tried to move Johnson, then went bargain shopping for one or 2 year deals. The Jazz, for example, got a bunch of really useful bench guys on short commitments for less money than MIA spent; they were way smarter about their offseason. hell, they might be a better team despite losing Hayward than miami

If you want to skip all of that because you disagree with me, fine, but how bout this:

YOU'RE MIAMI. You have a natural home court advantage for any star that becomes available. Even with recent misses, you are a better option than basically 80% of the league. YOU CAN AIM HIGH! Flexibility is more valuable to them because they'll be attractive to stars. Irving had them on his list. Any free agent will likely give you a meeting, at minimum. If you have cap space and/or the ability to easily create cap space, plus even a few assets, you are in the game.

[clyde21]

I mean he's a solid defender and a decent 3pt shooter but 10.5 million a year for a guy who struggles to maintain 50% TS?

It's fine but I wouldn't call it a "good" deal.

At this point it's a good deal if it's not an absolutely abysmal deal. NBA GMs have set the standard so low that a deal like this looks good in comparison.

In actuality, spending 10mil+ on a player like Richardson isn't necessarily a good idea. I think they're hoping for some organic development and improvement from him in the next four years to make this a better deal. Otherwise...meh.

[heatwillbeback]

We are locked in with this team.

Is this team a title contender? No.

Is it a fun, likable and competitive team? Yes.

As a fan, thats enough for now. We tried to make the big moves, didn't work.

[LofJ]

Not that it's a bad contract but the Heat have completely locked themselves into a bottom rung playoff team financially. Zero allstars. Lots of solid rotation players. No chance to become a top 4 seed even playing in the weak conference.

The Heat aren't planning to compete for a title over the next 3 years. They are waiting for Anthony Davis and Giannis to become free agents in the summer of 2020 to put together a contender.

[OptionZero]

It's going to be almost impossible for Richardson to outperform his contract because of the player option. If he's worth more than the amount he's due to be paid in the last year of his deal, he opts out and is worth nothing. If he's worth less, he's worth less than nothing and would be a negative asset.

The option is the 4th year, so they'll have THIS year left on his rookie deal and three more guaranteed years after that.

I don't know what you mean Richardson not being able to outperform his contract, as his production in any of those four years could easily outstrip the remaining rookie year deal and the $10.5M each for three years.

They'll either be getting quality 3&D play at below market rate OR they'll be able to peddle that contract in a trade package for something as a positive asset.

Four years of production is quite a long time.

This passes Danny Leroux's "Nene" test of any new contract - could you trade it without giving up something extra to convince someone to take it? I am certain any team with $10.5M in space those years would love to have Richardson

It doesn't make sense to include his rookie year when analyzing the extension. We should only be analyzing the chance of being positive value from the start of the extension (because the value provided from the last year of his rookie deal doesn't change regardless of what he's paid after).

I don't understand what you're saying though. The 4 year deal kicks in a year from now after the rookie deal ends. The 4th of those 4 years is a player option.

Player options are negative value for teams, so theoretically, if one thinks the overall trade is for market value, the team gets the player for slightly below market value per year to offset the negative freeroll of the player option (Richardson would need more money per year to agree to a deal without the player option). The closer you get to the end of the deal, the fewer of these positive value years remain and it's possible the deal becomes a negative value as the threat of the player option looms. The only way this changes is if the variables change and the player experiences a significant increase in skill and the player option is declined.

You saying that the player option year is a negative, or that the entire extension is a negative?

There's a reason why MIA gave him that; it's a negotiation. Giving a player an option at the end is usually done in exchange for a lower annual value for the guaranteed portion of the deal.

Again, i don't see how the whole extension could be considered a negative. Ignore the remaining rookie year; MIA would still be getting him guaranteed for three years at $10.5M/year. Thats very reasonable for a swingman in today's market. Everyone needs wings