Around the NBA 11

KembaWalker · Post #301 » by **KembaWalker** » Wed Dec 16, 2020 4:21 pm

it would be silly not to secure the supermax bag, he can still demand out at anytime. I wouldn't feel too secure about it

HornetJail · Post #302 » by **HornetJail** » Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:34 pm

KembaWalker wrote:it would be silly not to secure the supermax bag, he can still demand out at anytime. I wouldn't feel too secure about it

and if/when he does that, Milwaukee can get a big haul of assets to set them up for the future. There's a decent chance they have a Finals appearance or a title to show for it anyway.

LofJ · Post #303 » by **LofJ** » Thu Dec 17, 2020 2:13 pm

At least some in the media are starting to understand how the new lottery odds are changing the rebuilding process:

https://www.theringer.com/2020/12/17/22179125/nba-teams-can-no-longer-tank-their-way-to-the-top

Winning the lottery always came down to the bounces of ping-pong balls. But now the benefits to losing are lesser than before. The days of the quick fix in the draft are over.

MasterIchiro · Post #304 » by **MasterIchiro** » Thu Dec 17, 2020 6:30 pm

LofJ wrote:At least some in the media are starting to understand how the new lottery odds are changing the rebuilding process:

https://www.theringer.com/2020/12/17/22179125/nba-teams-can-no-longer-tank-their-way-to-the-top

Winning the lottery always came down to the bounces of ping-pong balls. But now the benefits to losing are lesser than before. The days of the quick fix in the draft are over.

Yes, I think adding Hayward so early in our rebuild preserves our draft position given the new lottery odds. The timing is especially ideal because so many teams battling for the 8 seed improved. And the Magic added a strong pick in Cole Anthony. Plus Fultz is really panning out. They have Fournier, Vucevic and Aaron Gordon. Their roster has established continuity and commiserate chemistry. The Hawks added Gallinari and Bogdonavic and Capela to their core of Young, Collins and Hunter. The Wizards added Westbrook to Beal, retained Bertans and added a steal in Avdija. The Suns added Paul to a core of Booker, Ayton, Bridges and Johnson. I've said this before but the Knicks, Cavs, Thunder and Pistons are maybe the only teams clearly worse. Bulls possibly. I think we may be in a position to draft Evan Mobley as our future center. This next draft is big for us and we need to turn our cap space into one more impact player on top of Hayward before we see the needle move at all. We could easily just start LaMelo, deal Devonte' for a future center and bolster our draft position. I don't think we've lost a step. I think we're right where we want to be. And like Rozier last year, Hayward keeps us respectable and adds structure necessary for development. Everyone hated the Rozier move but we added Ball. Pick 8 again in 2021 produces maybe a comparable talent with similar All-Star upside. So we don't need to rely on luck.

SWedd523 · Post #305 » by **SWedd523** » Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:09 pm

Alternatively, that sounds like a good argument against paying a dude $40mil a year if he doesn't move the needle much.

MasterIchiro · Post #306 » by **MasterIchiro** » Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:31 pm

SWedd523 wrote:Alternatively, that sounds like a good argument against paying a dude $40mil a year if he doesn't move the needle much.

Only if you altogether dismiss my point about how Hayward's addition provides structure necessary for development. We're the youngest team in the NBA even after signing a 30 year old. Our young players will develop faster and better with his floor leadership. He's a smart player who shares the ball and fits our culture. And he will still be productive after we land a big pick in the next draft plus an additional key free agent. Hayward doesn't hurt our draft stock yet improves our chances of attracting a good free agent with our 27 cap. So after next draft Hayward plus a free agent will make us a playoff team. Hayward helps our future and helps now. Kind of perfect.

Post #307 » by **yosemiteben** » Fri Dec 18, 2020 6:14 am

I don't buy the argument at all that it's fine if Hayward doesn't move the needle because he provides structure. I can't imagine our FO dropped that coin just so he could babysit us through another non playoff season.

I get the argument - if we're good yay, if we're bad we get a high pick and maybe Hayward is better than who we would've designed next summer anyway. I just think we should feel more confident that we are going to get more ROI on that contract than supporting the development of young guys.

penquin11 · Post #308 » by **penquin11** » Fri Dec 18, 2020 1:05 pm

yosemiteben wrote:I don't buy the argument at all that it's fine if Hayward doesn't move the needle because he provides structure. I can't imagine our FO dropped that coin just so he could babysit us through another non playoff season.

I get the argument - if we're good yay, if we're bad we get a high pick and maybe Hayward is better than who we would've designed next summer anyway. I just think we should feel more confident that we are going to get more ROI on that contract than supporting the development of young guys.

Dude screw structure they could've wasted 1/400th the price tag to sign me and get some "structure" whatever that even means. Dude is being paid as if we expect him to be an allstar, so he needs to play like an allstar.

JMAC3 · Post #309 » by **JMAC3** » Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:54 pm

penquin11 wrote:
yosemiteben wrote:I don't buy the argument at all that it's fine if Hayward doesn't move the needle because he provides structure. I can't imagine our FO dropped that coin just so he could babysit us through another non playoff season.

I get the argument - if we're good yay, if we're bad we get a high pick and maybe Hayward is better than who we would've designed next summer anyway. I just think we should feel more confident that we are going to get more ROI on that contract than supporting the development of young guys.

Dude screw structure they could've wasted 1/400th the price tag to sign me and get some "structure" whatever that even means. Dude is being paid as if we expect him to be an allstar, so he needs to play like an allstar.

He is being paid the 34th most money... so not quite an all-star contract technically. I have yet to see a good argument to be made about what we should do with our cap space. Not just "use cap for picks" because that was not really a thing this summer and I have not seen anyone lay out a plan of which contracts they would of brought on or which free agents they would of rather signed next offseason or this season.

SWedd523 · Post #310 » by **SWedd523** » Fri Dec 18, 2020 5:15 pm

You've heard multiple arguments, multiple times, from multiple posters.

Not liking them and/or not agreeing with them does not mean they're bad arguments

Post #311 » by **yosemiteben** » Fri Dec 18, 2020 6:50 pm

JMAC3 wrote:I have yet to see a good argument to be made about what we should do with our cap space.

Spend it on someone who, at the time we sign him, we are confident can help us actually win more games?

My response is completely based on this argument that it doesn't matter whether Hayward moves the needle this season.

JMAC3 · Post #312 » by **JMAC3** » Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:03 pm

SWedd523 wrote:You've heard multiple arguments, multiple times, from multiple posters.

Not liking them and/or not agreeing with them does not mean they're bad arguments

I can't think of a single realistic free agent target that people have mentioned that would of been better than Hayward that they would of spent money on this year or next. I am not saying you have to agree with the Hayward signing, but I would just like someone attempt to lay out a realistic detailed plan of what they would of liked more. Other than generic plans of "get picks" or "sign someone next year" or "sign someone better or younger".

If someone has laid out a detailed plan and I either missed or am forgetting I apologize, but I can only recall generic angry/sarcastic responses in response to Hayward signing.

JMAC3 · Post #313 » by **JMAC3** » Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:05 pm

yosemiteben wrote:
JMAC3 wrote:I have yet to see a good argument to be made about what we should do with our cap space.

Spend it on someone who, at the time we sign him, we are confident can help us actually win more games?

My response is completely based on this argument that it doesn't matter whether Hayward moves the needle this season.

I am not coming at you, but I would just like to see you toss a couple realistic names out there who will be free agents soon.

Post #314 » by **yosemiteben** » Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:10 pm

JMAC3 wrote:
yosemiteben wrote:
JMAC3 wrote:I have yet to see a good argument to be made about what we should do with our cap space.

Spend it on someone who, at the time we sign him, we are confident can help us actually win more games?

My response is completely based on this argument that it doesn't matter whether Hayward moves the needle this season.

I am not coming at you, but I would just like to see you toss a couple realistic names out there who will be free agents soon.

You mean names of people that we could spend $40M on and not move the needle? A bunch of people.

JMAC3 · Post #315 » by **JMAC3** » Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:12 pm

yosemiteben wrote:You mean names of people that we could spend $40M on and not move the needle? A bunch of people.

Nah realistic free agent signings this summer or next summer that are needle movers that cost 20-40 million that you would like to see us sign or would have liked to see us sign.

Post #316 » by **yosemiteben** » Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:22 pm

JMAC3 wrote:
yosemiteben wrote:You mean names of people that we could spend $40M on and not move the needle? A bunch of people.

Nah realistic free agent signings this summer or next summer that are needle movers that cost 20-40 million that you would like to see us sign or would have liked to see us sign.

Why do I need to do that? If we are starting from the place of Hayward not being a needle mover as far as getting us more wins, then shouldn't the ask be what other non-needle movers could we have had and gotten better ROI (i.e., spent less on)?

JMAC3 · Post #317 » by **JMAC3** » Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:25 pm

yosemiteben wrote:
JMAC3 wrote:
yosemiteben wrote:You mean names of people that we could spend $40M on and not move the needle? A bunch of people.

Nah realistic free agent signings this summer or next summer that are needle movers that cost 20-40 million that you would like to see us sign or would have liked to see us sign.

Why do I need to do that? If we are starting from the place of Hayward not being a needle mover as far as getting us more wins, then shouldn't the ask be what other non-needle movers could we have had and gotten better ROI (i.e., spent less on)?

1. So you don't think Hayward is worth any additional wins?

2. You do not think there are any other realistic targets in the 20-40 million range that we could of signed this summer or next that you would of preferred? or anyone we could of realistically signed who would of been a needle mover for wins?

Post #318 » by **BigSlam** » Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:50 pm

JMAC3 wrote:I can't think of a single realistic free agent target that people have mentioned that would of been better than Hayward that they would of spent money on this year or next.

Hayward wasn’t even in Mitch’s plans - he said so himself. They didn’t think/expect Hayward to be available.

So you are asking posters to provide you a concrete plan while living on a planet of quicksand.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Post #319 » by **yosemiteben** » Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:52 pm

JMAC3 wrote:
yosemiteben wrote:
JMAC3 wrote:
Nah realistic free agent signings this summer or next summer that are needle movers that cost 20-40 million that you would like to see us sign or would have liked to see us sign.

Why do I need to do that? If we are starting from the place of Hayward not being a needle mover as far as getting us more wins, then shouldn't the ask be what other non-needle movers could we have had and gotten better ROI (i.e., spent less on)?

1. So you don't think Hayward is worth any additional wins?

2. You do not think there are any other realistic targets in the 20-40 million range that we could of signed this summer or next that you would of preferred? or anyone we could of realistically signed who would of been a needle mover for wins?

(1) As I mentioned here, this whole response is based on the argument that Hayward doesn't "move the needle" / contribute wins.

(2) I'm not going to speculate who could we have signed because it's honestly not my job to figure that out. Obviously if we hadn't signed Hayward and he reupped with Boston than we wouldn't have known we could've gotten him, so we just don't have the data to understand who we could've gotten for what we paid Hayward. At the end of the day if the criteria was I get $40M in cap space per year and I can sign non-needle movers, there are very, very many different ways and guys I could have signed to accomplish that.

JMAC3 · Post #320 » by **JMAC3** » Fri Dec 18, 2020 8:05 pm

yosemiteben wrote:
(2) I'm not going to speculate who could we have signed because it's honestly not my job to figure that out. Obviously if we hadn't signed Hayward and he reupped with Boston than we wouldn't have known we could've gotten him, so we just don't have the data to understand who we could've gotten for what we paid Hayward. At the end of the day if the criteria was I get $40M in cap space per year and I can sign non-needle movers, there are very, very many different ways and guys I could have signed to accomplish that.

Hmmmm, not your job... obviously not your job, that is Mitch/MJ etc... but you are a MOD/poster on a basketball forum so I do not think it is outrageous that you would of given thought to the idea. I am not asking what would of exactly happened, but you don't want to speculate at all on a different avenue the team could of went when it came to spending its cap space and on which players???

It is not like you are going to get fired from your MOD position for tossing a few ideas out, not sure why you are so hesitant to post an actual idea or alternative plan. Instead you just continue to speak in these very generic responses "there are very, very many different ways and guys I could have signed to accomplish that".

Obviously do what you want, but it is a little like someone saying "Wow you overspent on that Audi, you could of gotten a much better deal for the money" ... Oh really which one should I have gone with? "IDK, but you made a bad decision".