Bucher: Knicks Had to Learn the Hardaway

[AHF]

So an All-Star level player getting the same % of the cap as Bazemore convinces you it is reasonable?  Try looking at the league's worst starters or second tier bench players for his comparable not Al Horford who was a top player in the NBA when he signed.  

Ive given a bunch of comparables for Baze in prior posts on this issue.  Guys who are weak links among starters or solid contributors among reserves don't get 16% of cap space -- except when a GM does something dumb enough to invite ridicule (which has happened).  

What made last year so unusual is the cap spike made this normal with terrible contracts for Turner, Bazemore, Mozgov, etc.  That won't continue.  MLE players will go back to getting the MLE as all the guys under "old" contracts get increases as they come up for FA and the new set of subpar starters/solid reserves finds they missed the window of riches that was last offseason.

[AHF]

Even with the passage of a short period of time, teams like the Rockets are already aware they dodged a bullet by missing on these flawed FAs.

[macdaddy]

15 hours ago, sturt said:

Pardon me, but I think you just made my argument.

Every year x number of contracts come off, and new ones go on. And, bit by bit, year by year, incrementally the strata readjust to align with the higher cap numbers. So, even if you are one who looks at this list...

... and think he doesn't belong with the likes of these guys above and below him (and I think there's a stout argument that that's not the case at all, given his age and the trend of his numbers coming into the season)... by contract's conclusion, he's likely to be pushed down by another 10 or so, to the likes of these players...

By 2016-17 standards, that's still not an exceptionally terrible group of players to be lumped-in with, but it's also not a group that is so overwhelmingly better that he doesn't even seem to belong.

 

I may be missing your point entirely but of the guard/wings on those lists it's pretty much only Rondo and Rubio that i wouldn't rather have.   

[Guest]

Yeah I didn't get the Al vs Baze comparison at all.  That's not a good thing that they have/had comparable salaries when Al is head and shoulders above Baze

[sturt]

5 hours ago, AHF said:

So an All-Star level player getting the same % of the cap as Bazemore convinces you it is reasonable?

Maybe read over top of this (?)...

Quote

(Mind you, when Horf signed, it was largely received as a bargain for ATL since he'd already made two ASGs, and had he not proven to be injury prone, he would have been an incredible bargain for that salary level.... probably should have been among the top 25 or 30 all things being equal.)

To be clear, crystal, Horf was considered a bargain at 16% from the git-go.

So, yeah. "Reasonable." Maybe on the outer edge of it, but that's pretty typical of most contracts in any off-season with upwardly-trending players like Bazemore, and in the previous off-season, like DMC.

Please note, I'm not arguing it's not ambitious. It is that. Already said so. But I am arguing that to say it's "impossible to live up to it" is an over-reach.

 

 

 

 

[sturt]

6 hours ago, AHF said:

What made last year so unusual is the cap spike made this normal with terrible contracts for Turner, Bazemore, Mozgov, etc.  That won't continue.  MLE players will go back to getting the MLE as all the guys under "old" contracts get increases as they come up for FA and the new set of subpar starters/solid reserves finds they missed the window of riches that was last offseason.

Again, there might be more agreement here than is being acknowledged. Might be.

I think it might confuse the topic to introduce "MLE player" as a construct because MLE players are not players one expects to take a lead role on the team, and often are not even starters but rather are rotation players. In recent history, those guys have made ~$5m, though that's about to spike to $8m and above.

I say it confuses the topic because I don't think when they signed him that Budcox thought-of Baze as you did and currently do--i.e., an "MLE player." Evidence says they projected him to be at least the 4th best player in the starting line-up, with the possibility of being the 3rd even. I can imagine, though I can't say for lock-certain, the vision was (and likely, is still) something along the lines of getting a Ron Artest at an early stage of his career.

So, a legit 3rd best player in the starting line-up? Sure, 16% is in the range.

And to the larger point, the NBA salary strata will accommodate that kind of salary.

Specific to Bazemore, I would advocate that the real issue is that you simply assess his talent as being less than what Budcox did... and not so much a matter of the spike in the salary cap having granted Baze an over-pay.

(At the moment, of course, your assessment is looking more solid than theirs... but of course, I'm sure they would point to their assessment of THjr this time last year as being evidence not to be too quick to decide whose assessment is more valid.)

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, sturt said:

Again, there might be more agreement here than is being acknowledged. Might be.

I think it might confuse the topic to introduce "MLE player" as a construct because MLE players are not players one expects to take a lead role on the team, and often are not even starters but rather are rotation players. In recent history, those guys have made ~$5m, though that's about to spike to $8m and above.

I say it confuses the topic because I don't think when they signed him that Budcox thought-of Baze as you did and currently do--i.e., an "MLE player." Evidence says they projected him to be at least the 4th best player in the starting line-up, with the possibility of being the 3rd even. I can imagine, though I can't say for lock-certain, the vision was (and likely, is still) something along the lines of getting a Ron Artest at an early stage of his career.

No. If we were able to resign DMC the previous year, he would be the MLE guy,  then Baze would be less than an MLE guy if the salary spike hadn't occurred.

Let's look back to - during DMC's final year, there were debates about how much he should get as a freeagent, he was making $2.5 mil. He started off the year hot, I said he will probably get the $5 MLE. Then talk started about the new TV deal, I said he'll probably get $7- $8 mil, then it happened, I said $10-$12 mil. Teams that didn't have capspace in 2015 suddenly did. DMC ended up getting $15 million, the highest paid player on the Raptors at the time. Let that sink in.

[sturt]

5 hours ago, macdaddy said:

I may be missing your point entirely but of the guard/wings on those lists it's pretty much only Rondo and Rubio that i wouldn't rather have.   

Can't know if you're missing my point, but to yours, first, I'm not inclined to limit the scope to just wings. But I think, second, the question you infer is the right question: "Do I think Baze would be traded straight-up for ___________, or would if not, which side would need a little more to make it make sense taking everything into account except for length of contract (ie, which is mostly external to the assessment of the player's current and potential production)?"

Draymond Green and, obviously to a lesser degree, Tristan Thompson are the only ones in the current group that, to my mind, without question would require more than Baze himself in trade (... though if it weren't for injury history, I'd add a couple of others.)

Assuming that Baze ends up getting pushed down to that second group sooner or later, Valanciunas, DMC (assuming he stays healthy), Bledsoe and Gay are without question going to require more in trade.

So, of 20 players, that's 6... not exactly evidence, imo, that he's out of his league there.

We'll have a better understanding of the trajectory next off-season, of course.

 

[sturt]

16 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

No. If we were able to resign DMC the previous year, he would be the MLE guy,  then Baze would be less than an MLE guy if the salary spike hadn't occurred.

So as not to have to look at every team, allow me to put in perspective what a theoretical "MLE player" represented in the hierarchy of each of last season's Eastern Conference playoff teams:

ATL: 5 players made more than the MLE

BOS: 5

CHO: 7

CLE: 6

DET: 4

IND: 4

MIA: 4

TOR: 5

 

[macdaddy]

22 minutes ago, sturt said:

Can't know if you're missing my point, but to yours, first, I'm not inclined to limit the scope to just wings. But I think, second, the question you infer is the right question: "Do I think Baze would be traded straight-up for ___________, or would if not, which side would need a little more to make it make sense taking everything into account except for length of contract (ie, which is mostly external to the assessment of the player's current and potential production)?"

Draymond Green and, obviously to a lesser degree, Tristan Thompson are the only ones in the current group that, to my mind, without question would require more than Baze himself in trade (... though if it weren't for injury history, I'd add a couple of others.)

Assuming that Baze ends up getting pushed down to that second group sooner or later, Valanciunas, DMC (assuming he stays healthy), Bledsoe and Gay are without question going to require more in trade.

So, of 20 players, that's 6... not exactly evidence, imo, that he's out of his league there.

We'll have a better understanding of the trajectory next off-season, of course.

 

You mean you think Baze straight up for Dragic,  Middleton, Gallanari,  Reggie Jackson,  Bledsoe  (just to name the top ones) is feasible in terms of equal value?    I don't think that.   I'd probably jump at most of those.   Especially Bledsoe and Gallanari.   

[Bankingitbig]

For reference, 2017-2018 MLEs

• Non-taxpayer MLE = $8.406M (8.2% of cap)
• Taxpayer MLE = $5.192M (5.1% of cap)
• Room MLE = $4.328M (4.2% of cap)

I always thought of the MLE being used for a bench role player vet. Though in some cases for a starter like a Thabo Sefolosha. I think he is a decent example. I don't think someone like Baze who is arguably your 3rd best player at the time of signing and is somewhat young going into his prime is worthy of the MLE.

[sturt]

10 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

You mean you think Baze straight up for Dragic,  Middleton, Gallanari,  Reggie Jackson,  Bledsoe  (just to name the top ones) is feasible in terms of equal value?    I don't think that.   I'd probably jump at most of those.   Especially Bledsoe and Gallanari.   

Okay, maybe add Dragic. But no, Middleton (injury), Gallanari (injury), or Jackson (just my opinion of the player) would represent a clear edge over Baze in a trade. (Already acknowledged Bledsoe.)

Even if we take those 4 additional, you still end up with Baze in the middle of a group of #40-#59 (... ie, which goes to the larger point of the discussion).

[AHF]

51 minutes ago, sturt said:

Again, there might be more agreement here than is being acknowledged. Might be.

I think it might confuse the topic to introduce "MLE player" as a construct because MLE players are not players one expects to take a lead role on the team, and often are not even starters but rather are rotation players. In recent history, those guys have made ~$5m, though that's about to spike to $8m and above.

I say it confuses the topic because I don't think when they signed him that Budcox thought-of Baze as you did and currently do--i.e., an "MLE player." Evidence says they projected him to be at least the 4th best player in the starting line-up, with the possibility of being the 3rd even. I can imagine, though I can't say for lock-certain, the vision was (and likely, is still) something along the lines of getting a Ron Artest at an early stage of his career.

So, a legit 3rd best player in the starting line-up? Sure, 16% is in the range.

And to the larger point, the NBA salary strata will accommodate that kind of salary.

Specific to Bazemore, I would advocate that the real issue is that you simply assess his talent as being less than what Budcox did... and not so much a matter of the spike in the salary cap having granted Baze an over-pay.

(At the moment, of course, your assessment is looking more solid than theirs... but of course, I'm sure they would point to their assessment of THjr this time last year as being evidence not to be too quick to decide whose assessment is more valid.)

Let me grant you the notion that you are correct in assuming that Budcox viewed him as being better than everyone but Howard/Horford, Sap and Dennis (who they believed in enough to ditch Teague who I cannot believe they did not view as a better player than Baze).

That is a huge freaking mistake.  He has never been close to that good.
 

He was 11th on the team last year in PER and 40th among SFs.

He was 11th on the team last  year in WS/48.

He was 12th on the team in scoring efficiency.

He was 39th among SFs last season in Real Plus-Minus.

 

On top of all that, he fell off a cliff last season seeing his scoring efficiency drop like a rock in 2016 after his hot start to begin the season in 2015 and that drop like a rock efficiency was consistent with his weak-@#$ career norm to that point so if you actually watched him and his .455% TS% in the playoffs you had to be wondering how much of his hot start was fool's gold.

 

Based on his play last year, only a fool would consider him to be the rising stud and foundational player he would need to be to justify that salary.  And yes I am saying that if Budcox believed for even a fleeting moment that he might be a top 3 player on the team they were absolute fools.  

I do not think they were, however.  I think they wanted to sign Howard and Horford and it would make no sense to line up a superstar frontcourt only to be undermined by a weak sauce backcourt.  Therefore, they were willing to enter the irrational 2016-17 'mediocre role player bonanza' and overpay Bazemore because if we were going to contend this season we needed him for wing depth.  Horford's "green, green baby!!" move pulled the rug out from under that plan some but I get where they were hoping to go and stand by my statement that his contract will continue to look bad for years to come unless he takes a big step forward in his development.

[AHF]

Oh, and for what it is worth here are my comparables for him from another discussion:

Quote

 Compare him to say 1999-00 Jim Jackson who averaged 17, 5 and 3 for the Hawks and was roughly 5% of the team's total payroll.  Or maybe Raja Bell who was 6.7% of the Suns' payroll near the peak of his career earnings when he was 2nd on the team in minutes playing alongside Shaq, Nash, Amare, etc.

 

[lethalweapon3]

(Ctrl+F)

"T, i, m" 0 of 0

"H, a, r, d, a" 0 of 0

"B, a, z" 1 of 59

~lw3

[macdaddy]

18 hours ago, sturt said:

Okay, maybe add Dragic. But no, Middleton (injury), Gallanari (injury), or Jackson (just my opinion of the player) would represent a clear edge over Baze in a trade. (Already acknowledged Bledsoe.)

Even if we take those 4 additional, you still end up with Baze in the middle of a group of #40-#59 (... ie, which goes to the larger point of the discussion).

I guess my point is that of the guys getting paid in Baze's range I consider most of them to be better players and the only ones I don't i also consider to be way overpaid.   But I'm hopeful Baze continues to improve like he is showing lately.   I guess I don't like him as a starting wing (and getting paid that way).   I see him more as a guy off the bench.   Again, i hope i'm wrong.   

[ATLSmith]

Back on topic.  I like that the current regime realizes there is more to being "NBA ready" than shooting statistics or past performances in college.  They recognized the impact Timny would have if he just put in the work to be a step quicker and just a bit more explosive.

Im sure they see the same thing when it comes to our rookies, but also realize the rooks arent quite physically ready for big minutes in the NBA, which is a big step up from colllege ball.

[Guest]

This is even more interesting:

Quote

The NBA has lowered its salary cap projections for the next two seasons.

In a January memo attained by Basketball Insiders, the league informed teams that the 2017-18 cap is expected to be $102 million with a luxury tax threshold of $122 million. For 2018-19, the NBA estimates a cap of $103 million with the tax line at $125 million.

The NBA had originally projected a cap of $102 million in July, briefly raising that estimate to $103 million in October.

The 2018-19 projection holds greater significance, dropping five million from the league’s July number of $108 million.

The decrease for next season is tied to an increase in player benefits, as dictated by the new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) signed by the NBA and NBPA last month. The league now expects higher salaries and benefits for 2017-18, which in turn will eliminate an expected $100 million shortfall in player salaries that had inflated the 2018-19 projection.

http://www.basketballinsiders.com/nba-lowers-cap-projection-for-next-two-seasons/

[AHF]

Hope that dries up some of the free agent money so we keep THJr at a reasonable rate.

 "No backsies, Bud!!"