**The Official Karl-Anthony Towns Thread: Part Two**

[JimmyPlopper]

[Dewey]

He is not soft. Towns is often playing “emotionally drunk”. He needs to control his emotions, play with pace.

ya i mostly agree ...

... It's not that I dislike KAT, but I just have a feel we should cash in on him (pending a great deal) and move ahead. I've never been sold he could lead this team and I think that evidence to support this is there. Now, when talking a supermax deal, I completely expect that player to have a significant leadership role.

[shangrila]

I get the idea behind why NBA introduced Super Max and there are few cases where it did help out small market teams like Bucks-Giannis but there also have been lot of cases where the teams ended up being crippled due to the super max contract. One change I wish to see happen is that the additional 8% raise not being counted towards the cap.

I don't believe it's a "market" issue, but rather a "willingness to spend" issue. Most of these small markets haven't shown a willingness to spend like their larger counterparts.

There's limits to any kind of spending. There's stories now, for example, that the Warriors ownership sold off a bunch of stuff to afford those dynasty teams (like ownership stakes, stadium stuff, etc).

But at the end of the day, in a capped league, if you're going to pay a guy 2/3s of the cap he better be one of the best players in the league. That isn't KAT, nor was it Westbrook or Wall. I agree that we will probably give KAT this supermax but he is in no way, shape or form worth it. It's just the price of doing business in this league unfortunately.

[Dewey]

I get the idea behind why NBA introduced Super Max and there are few cases where it did help out small market teams like Bucks-Giannis but there also have been lot of cases where the teams ended up being crippled due to the super max contract. One change I wish to see happen is that the additional 8% raise not being counted towards the cap.

I don't believe it's a "market" issue, but rather a "willingness to spend" issue. Most of these small markets haven't shown a willingness to spend like their larger counterparts.

There's limits to any kind of spending. There's stories now, for example, that the Warriors ownership sold off a bunch of stuff to afford those dynasty teams (like ownership stakes, stadium stuff, etc).

But at the end of the day, in a capped league, if you're going to pay a guy 2/3s of the cap he better be one of the best players in the league. That isn't KAT, nor was it Westbrook or Wall. I agree that we will probably give KAT this supermax but he is in no way, shape or form worth it. It's just the price of doing business in this league unfortunately.

Good comments ... I fear the super-max. We already have players overpaid - let alone the supermax. We just don't have a player that fits that mold.

[Klomp]

I don't believe it's a "market" issue, but rather a "willingness to spend" issue. Most of these small markets haven't shown a willingness to spend like their larger counterparts.

There's limits to any kind of spending. There's stories now, for example, that the Warriors ownership sold off a bunch of stuff to afford those dynasty teams (like ownership stakes, stadium stuff, etc).

But at the end of the day, in a capped league, if you're going to pay a guy 2/3s of the cap he better be one of the best players in the league. That isn't KAT, nor was it Westbrook or Wall. I agree that we will probably give KAT this supermax but he is in no way, shape or form worth it. It's just the price of doing business in this league unfortunately.

Good comments ... I fear the super-max. We already have players overpaid - let alone the supermax. We just don't have a player that fits that mold.

There are players overpaid. There are players underpaid. The franchises who can balance that best in their ascent to the top are able to build something great.

That is the importance of cap management and not selling off assets for less than they are truly worth. It can take years to recover.

[shrink]

A little thought experiment.

Two teams each have four players they paid $20 mil for, and together they give each team $80 mil in production.

Team A buys a fifth player for $20 mil that provides $20 mil in production .. they produce 100 units each game
Team B buys a fifth player for $40 mil that provides $30 mil in production .. they produce 110 units, and beat Team A.

My point is that the winning team isn’t the one with the best contracts. The winning team is the one that can get the most production for their overall money, vs their opponents. Wins come from production.

Max deals are scary, but they allow a team to consolidate a lot of production into a single player on the floor. If Team A spends its $40 mil on two $20 mil players, Team B still wins, because Team A can’t play six men. Giannis, Jokic etc are worth super-max deals .. probably more. They need to be supported by cost-effective production from other positions. KAT does not need to produce $45 mil in production to be worth a $45 mil contract, but he better be closer to Giannis and not John Wall for that money to lead to wins for the Wolves.

[shangrila]

It isn't impossible to build an elite team on a budget but willfully handicapping yourself by overpaying Towns by about 20mil a season seems like a really stupid thing to get excited about.

[Klomp]

It isn't impossible to build an elite team on a budget but willfully handicapping yourself by overpaying Towns by about 20mil a season seems like a really stupid thing to get excited about.

Market value for a player of Towns' caliber is a lot more than 20% of the salary cap, especially for a small market franchise, which is the equivalent of what you're suggesting.

[shangrila]

It isn't impossible to build an elite team on a budget but willfully handicapping yourself by overpaying Towns by about 20mil a season seems like a really stupid thing to get excited about.

Market value for a player of Towns' caliber is a lot more than 20% of the salary cap, especially for a small market franchise, which is the equivalent of what you're suggesting.

The market rate is not the supermax. It literally can't be, since the market can't offer it.

But yes, I do believe Towns is worth between 20-25% of the cap and that's fair. He's not an all time great and I seriously doubt he'd even qualify for the supermax if All NBA didn't force in Cs.

I mean if you want to be happy about this, go for it. I'm not and I hope it doesn't come back to bite us later.

[Klomp]

It isn't impossible to build an elite team on a budget but willfully handicapping yourself by overpaying Towns by about 20mil a season seems like a really stupid thing to get excited about.

Market value for a player of Towns' caliber is a lot more than 20% of the salary cap, especially for a small market franchise, which is the equivalent of what you're suggesting.

The market rate is not the supermax. It literally can't be, since the market can't offer it.

But yes, I do believe Towns is worth between 20-25% of the cap and that's fair. He's not an all time great and I seriously doubt he'd even qualify for the supermax if All NBA didn't force in Cs.

I mean if you want to be happy about this, go for it. I'm not and I hope it doesn't come back to bite us later.

He's literally the best 3-point shooting big man in NBA history.

[shangrila]

Market value for a player of Towns' caliber is a lot more than 20% of the salary cap, especially for a small market franchise, which is the equivalent of what you're suggesting.

The market rate is not the supermax. It literally can't be, since the market can't offer it.

But yes, I do believe Towns is worth between 20-25% of the cap and that's fair. He's not an all time great and I seriously doubt he'd even qualify for the supermax if All NBA didn't force in Cs.

I mean if you want to be happy about this, go for it. I'm not and I hope it doesn't come back to bite us later.

He's literally the best 3-point shooting big man in NBA history.

Well, that's his opinion. There's plenty of people, including players, that disagree.

But even if he is...that doesn't make him an all time great.

[Domejandro]

Not Super-Maxing Karl-Anthony Towns is a ludicrous idea, especially given the new ownership's willingness to spend. Even with a Super-Max, Minnesota has a max cap slot in 2023 that they can either leverage into a really good third piece, or break into multiple high-tier role-players. The belief that maxing Towns completely nukes the team's financial flexibility just is not accurate; there is not a team in the NBA that would let him walk instead of paying him his money.

[jscott]

The market rate is not the supermax. It literally can't be, since the market can't offer it.

But yes, I do believe Towns is worth between 20-25% of the cap and that's fair. He's not an all time great and I seriously doubt he'd even qualify for the supermax if All NBA didn't force in Cs.

I mean if you want to be happy about this, go for it. I'm not and I hope it doesn't come back to bite us later.

He's literally the best 3-point shooting big man in NBA history.

Well, that's his opinion. There's plenty of people, including players, that disagree.

But even if he is...that doesn't make him an all time great.

That’s not an opinion bro. It’s backed up by stats…

Do you not understand facts?

[Biff Cooper]

4. The new TV deal will significantly raise the cap, so max deals signed in a few years will cost a great deal more. This one will be limited to 8% raises on the initial number, but even with cap smoothing, the numbers will jump higher than 9%

I always assumed that a super-max salary slid at 35% of the cap. Coon isn't completely clear on this, but it seems like it is 35% of the salary cap on the day the contract is signed (with certain allowable escalators for ensuing years) rather than a dynamically changing number that moves around with the cap?

[shrink]

4. The new TV deal will significantly raise the cap, so max deals signed in a few years will cost a great deal more. This one will be limited to 8% raises on the initial number, but even with cap smoothing, the numbers will jump higher than 8%

I always assumed that a super-max salary slid at 35% of the cap. Coon isn't completely clear on this, but it seems like it is 35% of the salary cap on the day the contract is signed (with certain allowable escalators for ensuing years) rather than a dynamically changing number that moves around with the cap?

You’re right that Larry Coon and other sources aren’t always clear on this. In practice, no one knows what number the salary cap will come in at, two years in the future, and we will only get estimates of Basketball Related Income until after the finals. I have heard that max deals and extensions have the language “35% of the cap,” instead of a specific number. Raises though are a hard and fast rule in the NBA, because they want the original team to have the advantage of offering 8% raises vs other teams 5%.

[Dewey]

Not Super-Maxing Karl-Anthony Towns is a ludicrous idea, especially given the new ownership's willingness to spend. Even with a Super-Max, Minnesota has a max cap slot in 2023 that they can either leverage into a really good third piece, or break into multiple high-tier role-players. The belief that maxing Towns completely nukes the team's financial flexibility just is not accurate; there is not a team in the NBA that would let him walk instead of paying him his money.

As a GM …
1. I don’t wanna let him walk because it leaves others players question your loyalty and/or come off as a cheapA$$…

2. Sign him as a Supermax player, then as a GM, do your job and build around him.

3. Pay up and it leads to mediocracy, then People are like “why did you pay him the super max”? You can’t afford pieces…

4. Trade him and pivot around Ant.

Bottom line… he’s not a lock as title man and options need to be evaluated. He’s likely signed but it’s clearly not one of those “no-Brainers”. I think the focus short-term will be to be add a piece or two around him.

[Slim Tubby]

Not Super-Maxing Karl-Anthony Towns is a ludicrous idea, especially given the new ownership's willingness to spend. Even with a Super-Max, Minnesota has a max cap slot in 2023 that they can either leverage into a really good third piece, or break into multiple high-tier role-players. The belief that maxing Towns completely nukes the team's financial flexibility just is not accurate; there is not a team in the NBA that would let him walk instead of paying him his money.

Let me reiterate the part I put in bold for you...there isn't a single team in the NBA that wouldn't pay KAT the Super Max. He's flawed and needs to learn how to control his emotions, but he's special offensively and I was impressed with the improvements he made last year on defense.

[shangrila]

He's literally the best 3-point shooting big man in NBA history.

Well, that's his opinion. There's plenty of people, including players, that disagree.

But even if he is...that doesn't make him an all time great.

That’s not an opinion bro. It’s backed up by stats…

I read it as just best "shooting" big man, which is debatable. Best 3pt shooter specifically...yeah, ok, sure. I can't really be bothered to go through history to see if there was anyone better so I'll give you all that.

Still doesn't make him worth the supermax or an all time great. But hey, you guys won the technicality. Congratulations.

Do you not understand facts?

[shangrila]

Not Super-Maxing Karl-Anthony Towns is a ludicrous idea, especially given the new ownership's willingness to spend. Even with a Super-Max, Minnesota has a max cap slot in 2023 that they can either leverage into a really good third piece, or break into multiple high-tier role-players. The belief that maxing Towns completely nukes the team's financial flexibility just is not accurate; there is not a team in the NBA that would let him walk instead of paying him his money.

Oh, I get it's a part of doing business. But that doesn't mean that;

A) Towns is remotely worth the supermax
B) The supermax isn't incredibly flawed and needs a total overhaul
C) It will hurt the cap going forward

The only reason we have max space in '23 is specifically because his supermax (and Ant's extension) wouldn't have kicked in yet. After that we're in cap hell moving forward, especially if we do add another max guy to those 2.

So yes, it is accurate to say it impacts our financials and the only ludicrous thing is that you've completely misunderstood the point I and many others were making.

[fattymcgee]

Well, that's his opinion. There's plenty of people, including players, that disagree.

But even if he is...that doesn't make him an all time great.

That’s not an opinion bro. It’s backed up by stats…

I read it as just best "shooting" big man, which is debatable. Best 3pt shooter specifically...yeah, ok, sure. I can't really be bothered to go through history to see if there was anyone better so I'll give you all that.

Still doesn't make him worth the supermax or an all time great. But hey, you guys won the technicality. Congratulations.

Do you not understand facts?

Why do you keep bringing up "all time great"? I don't get it. What does that have to do with the super max? There are plenty of players eligible for the supermax that aren't all time greats.