Suns lose to Wemby-less Spurs

[highwhey]

damn that's crazy


https://thefader-res.cloudinary.com/private_images/w_750,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:eco/eholland_future_1_il7lfj/eholland_future_1_il7lfj.jpg

[Axe]

No giraffe, no problem.

[Real Men Wear Green]

He's a useful player and I'm certainly not going to pin the loss on him because I didn't watch this game, I'm just looking at the box score. But if you are a guy that can get a 6 point, 2 assist 4 rebound statline and yet not get blamed for the loss then you're a roleplayer. If a full third of your games are single-digit scoring and you are a shooting guard then you're a roleplayer.

[tontoz]

That has to be the worst loss of the season. All their starters are healthy and they are trying to stay out of the play in.

The $50 million dollar man needs to show up.

[Real Men Wear Green]

That has to be the worst loss of the season. All their starters are healthy and they are trying to stay out of the play in.

The $50 million dollar man needs to show up.
It's hard to be the third scorer when you're only the team's second best player at your natural position. At least one of their top 3 should be traded for a point guard, some depth, some strong defensive roleplayers, etc...some combination of those things. It would make them a better. They have redundant scoring in the easiest scoring eta of our lifetimes, when scoring is easiest to find. A 3 and D guy could be more valuable to a lot of teams than a 20ppg guy because that roleplayer can spam 3s to a 15 point average.

[Manny98]

Spurs play good basketball without the statpadder

[ImKobe]

Spurs play good basketball without the statpadder

They have the same W/L% without him so not really. Suns just love playing down to their competition too much. They beat the Suns twice with Wemby as well. I think KD played in all 4 games too which makes it funnier.

[warriorfan]

some guys here said beal’s contract wasn’t that bad







lmaoooooo

[tontoz]

It's hard to be the third scorer when you're only the team's second best player at your natural position. At least one of their top 3 should be traded for a point guard, some depth, some strong defensive roleplayers, etc...some combination of those things. It would make them a better. They have redundant scoring in the easiest scoring eta of our lifetimes, when scoring is easiest to find. A 3 and D guy could be more valuable to a lot of teams than a 20ppg guy because that roleplayer can spam 3s to a 15 point average.


I didn't like the Beal trade for them when it happened. I thought they would be better than this though.

Glad to be rid of Beal's contract....but then we replaced it with Poole's awful deal. :facepalm

[Real Men Wear Green]

I didn't like the Beal trade for them when it happened. I thought they would be better than this though.

Glad to be rid of Beal's contract....but then we replaced it with Poole's awful deal. :facepalm
Injuries have made their record worse than it should be but even at full strength they don't look like a great team. The Beal trade wasn't good for them long-term but the goal was to win now and if you think having three scorers automatically makes you a contender it makes some sense. Unfortunately for them these three players don't fit well together. They aren't awful but the idea was to be offensively overwhelming but instead of having everyone's talent unleashed they've had injury problems and haven't been special even when healthy.

[Kblaze8855]

some guys here said beal’s contract wasn’t that bad







lmaoooooo

it is pretty unremarkable. By percentage, it’s nothing we have not seen dozens of times for similar and worse players with contracts you don’t even remember because nobody cared. That it could be on a roster people consider loaded enough to complain they’re gonna win around 50 games while being healthy for like 30 kind of makes that hard to argue against.

but you’re well past the point of thinking on this subject. You’re gonna repeat yourself so long as they don’t win the title and even if by some miracle they did you would say they would’ve won three if he were paid 39 million instead. Seems you would like to keep talking about it though. It’s one of your things at this point and I will indulge you every couple of months till telling you truths your feelings don’t accept gets old.

I didn’t feel a need to keep going on about Sheed making 16 of 44 to not be an all star. Don’t know why you want to keep talking about Beal making 46 of 142. Nine none All stars alone were making more money than Beal is now at the time.

He makes like a percentage point off of washed Keith VanHorn on the Knicks money. And it’s going down the next several years, because the built-in cap increases are greater than the increases built into his contract.

The greatest trick the owners pulled is convincing both the players and fans that make too much money now.

It has never been easier to pay these guys and still build a talented team around them because contracts looked at as devastatingly large to fans are of less consequence than they have ever been. Rasheed was the second highest paid player on a middling playoff team and he made more of the cap than Steph Curry does now as the top paid player in the league.

The NBA PR department pulled the wool over your eyes with terms like Supermax. they fit more players near the top level of smaller contracts, which makes it easier to build super teams because You can fit several on one team.

it really was pretty smart. Gave the stars the idea they get more at the same time they fooled the fans into taking their side in arguments, while they decrease costs and make it easier to build teams than ever.

The owners have their issues, but their negotiators consistently kick the players ass. They manipulated the situation to where contracts like Beals don’t really even matter. You can have three at the time if you feel like it. Everybody can definitely have two. I don’t know how much anyone would have to make to actually prevent a good team from forming around them, but nobody is making it right now

[Kblaze8855]

I didn't like the Beal trade for them when it happened. I thought they would be better than this though.

Glad to be rid of Beal's contract....but then we replaced it with Poole's awful deal. :facepalm

Jordan Poole makes less of the wizards than Matt Geiger made One year he was literally retired. He makes considerably less than Kris Humphreys did. You’re a tanking team which, depending on some decisions might be scraping the salary floor soon, and have to pay the exact same money into a fund to be distributed to the players at the end of the season. Jordan Pooles contract isn’t costing you little. It’s costing your team literally nothing. Jordan Poole playing well is what would hurt your team because you’d win more games When I look at your roster, suggest you should be shooting for lottery picks the entire length of his deal.

This is one of those things that has to be pure emotion Just defeating your common sense. I don’t have any evidence you are stupid person, so I can’t see what else the problem would be.

His contract is nothing and he is helping a team lose that needs to lose. Is there some reason you want to win 43 games instead? What were you hoping he would do? Winning is something you’re in favor of right now? Do you just principally not like to see a player make good money, even when it serves your purposes and does no tangible harm?


right now you would have the second best odds at the top pick. You can’t fall out of the top four I believe. Would you prefer Jordan had played better this year so you’re 10th hanging around the nets? How would Jordan Poole playing better help you? I just don’t get it. You have implied you would be better without him. Would that be desirable? 31 wins instead of 18? If so….why?

[tontoz]

Jordan Poole makes less of the wizards than Matt Geiger made One year he was literally retired. He makes considerably less than Kris Humphreys did. You’re a tanking team which, depending on some decisions might be scraping the salary floor soon, and have to pay the exact same money into a fund to be distributed to the players at the end of the season. Jordan Pooles contract isn’t costing you little. It’s costing your team literally nothing. Jordan Poole playing well is what would hurt your team because you’d win more games When I look at your roster, suggest you should be shooting for lottery picks the entire length of his deal.

This is one of those things that has to be pure emotion Just defeating your common sense. I don’t have any evidence you are stupid person, so I can’t see what else the problem would be.

His contract is nothing and he is helping a team lose that needs to lose. Is there some reason you want to win 43 games instead? What were you hoping he would do? Winning is something you’re in favor of right now? Do you just principally not like to see a player make good money, even when it serves your purposes and does no tangible harm?



I DGAF what Matt Geiger made. Just because there have been bad contracts in the past doesn't mean that Poole's contract doesn't suck.

We had Beal and Porzingis on the team last year and still won only 35 so how exactly were we going to win 43 this year without them? That is just an idiotic strawman argument. I understand though. You have to make up a strawman to pretend you are making sense. News flash, nobody is buying it.

[warriorfan]

Kblaze as a defense attorney

“If you really think about it, murder isn’t that bad, I mean it’s happened plenty of times in the past”

[Kblaze8855]

The downside of a contract being too big, is it not allowing you to add other talented players. His contract still allows him to play with Kevin Durant and Devin Booker. It obviously isn’t a devastating contract. If he were paid what many players of the past were paid cap wise, you would not be able to add two more of them. Ewing making the modern equivalent of $90 million is why he couldn’t play with two more players like him. It doesn’t work that way anymore.

your problem is you think it’s about Bradley Beal. It isn’t. It’s about the NBA changing the system so nobody has a contract big enough you can’t build a great team around it. The entire basis of the argument was removed by the league subtly changing how this works while revenue increased. It doesn’t matter who the player is. there is no such thing as a crippling contract in the NBA anymore.

Fans just do the bidding of the league when they talk about these giant numbers and help cheap owners and bad GM’s get off the hook by believing nothing can be done. It’s straight up manipulation of the uninformed and fans fall for it every time.

One would think people would catch on when guys in the top 20 range are signing contracts that will pay them $70 million for one season but it’s easier to believe multimillion dollar accounting firms don’t have calculators then to accept you’ve been hoodwinked into thinking these giant figures actually hurt the teams giving them out.

[Kblaze8855]

I DGAF what Matt Geiger made. Just because there have been bad contracts in the past doesn't mean that Poole's contract doesn't suck.

We had Beal and Porzingis on the team last year and still won only 35 so how exactly were we going to win 43 this year without them? That is just an idiotic strawman argument. I understand though. You have to make up a strawman to pretend you are making sense. News flash, nobody is buying it.


Actually, the only thing that determines if a contract is good or bad is where it stands in line with other contracts. Poole makes high end role player money. He makes “Meh” money. There are Better players, who make less but generally on teams that want to win. He makes the same as Jerami Grant does for Portland and serves a similar purpose.

He has a middling deal on a team with a salary low enough that you can’t even get the money back for it in full because you would be 6 million under the salary floor if you could cut him. The wizards salary is literally…too low to cut him and save that money. They’d just have to pay some back to the players. You would be $32 million below the salary floor next year without him before factoring in draft picks and potential extensions. But let’s just ignore that…even though it’s obviously why they don’t give a shit about having it. Let’s just play dumb and pretend the CBA would actually allow them to just cut his salary and not have to pay it out anyway….


I did not say they somehow would or should win 43 games. I asked you would you prefer it? It seems you want poole to play better. My question to you is very simple…..

Why?

What do you get out of him playing better except more wins which…I assume…you don’t want.

Cutting him would make your salary nearly too low to be in compliance with league rules. Him playing better wins you more games which I assume you don’t want to happen as you aren’t stupid and want higher picks.

Since you find it so obvious, please tell me why the ideal situation isn’t having his salary in place while he plays poorly.


It’s a limited time placeholder so you don’t have to make any giant Houston rocket like signings of people to just keep you in compliance.

He also loses you games….which helps you tank for higher picks.

Where is the downside?

How is a team harmed by paying money the CBA obligates them to pay For a guy who loses them games, they don’t want to win?

you really don’t see what’s confusing about this?

Wouldn’t the wizards outlook be worse…..if he played better?

[tontoz]

The last time they won 43 was 2018 with 3 top 5 picks in their starting lineup and Gortat at center.

Where exactly did i say i would prefer they would win 43 games? I think it must have been voices inside your head saying that because i never did. Even if they kept KP and Beal that would have been a long shot.

If Poole played better then he would be tradable ie we could get something for him. As it stands now he is one of the worst players in the league making only $6 million less than Jamal Murray and MPJ. We would have to attach assets to him like draft picks in order to move him. Overpaying bad players is never a good idea in a salary cap league. Of course that doesn't stop dumb teams from doing it.

But Poole playing better isn't going to suddenly make the Wizards a .500 team :facepalm There isn't anyone in this draft worth tanking for anyway. The Thompson twins would probably go 1/2 in this draft. And the draft isnt the only way to rebuild. OKC got their best player in a trade.

[Kblaze8855]

He is helping a team lose that needs to lose. The 43 games is just a random number to represent mediocrity which I feel like I remember you saying you wish the team would stop trying to be. Was that someone else? I don’t remember many wizard fans but I feel like you were the one talking about them always making decisions that don’t make them great but doesn’t make them bad enough to get good pics. Was that not you?

And if it was you….. Isn’t paying Jordan Poole a contract just big enough to keep you off the salary floor for a few years while he loses exactly the type of thing a team that had decided to fully tank would do?

You appearing to not like the draft doesn’t make getting higher pics a bad idea. Even the worst draft have good players. The closer you are to the top the better your chance to pick whoever you like. The wizards need like three draft picks to hit The next few years. If he’s going to make you lose while you can barely keep enough salary to not be Contracted seems like everybody wins.

[tontoz]

He is helping a team lose that needs to lose. The 43 games is just a random number to represent mediocrity which I feel like I remember you saying you wish the team would stop trying to be. Was that someone else? I don’t remember many wizard fans but I feel like you were the one talking about them always making decisions that don’t make them great but doesn’t make them bad enough to get good pics. Was that not you?

And if it was you….. Isn’t paying Jordan Poole a contract just big enough to keep you off the salary floor for a few years while he loses exactly the type of thing a team that had decided to fully tank would do?

You appearing to not like the draft doesn’t make getting higher pics a bad idea. Even the worst draft have good players. The closer you are to the top the better your chance to pick whoever you like. The wizards need like three draft picks to hit The next few years. If he’s going to make you lose while you can barely keep enough salary to not be Contracted seems like everybody wins.


First of all losing is what the Wizards do. 43 games isn't mediocrity for the Wizards. That would be one of their best years.

If they had kept Chris Paul or traded him for someone else they would still suck but they would have more flexibility. For example the Cavs took on the bad contract of Baron Davis to get a draft pick that turned into Kyrie.

[Kblaze8855]

Depending on how a few things land in a weird assortment of arrangements between like four teams the wizards have 4-5 first round picks the next three years and can be 80 million under the cap year after next. How much more flexibility do you want? Nobody can tell where pix land after years, but they are pretty bare bones. You’re gonna have to overpay one of your own guys or make one of those Vanvleet signings just to hit the salary floor. You’re pretty much free to do whatever you want and should be reeling in top 5ish picks this year and next at the very least. Preferably for a third year. Then you get serious.

[tontoz]

Depending on how a few things land in a weird assortment of arrangements between like four teams the wizards have 4-5 first round picks the next three years and can be 80 million under the cap year after next. How much more flexibility do you want? Nobody can tell where pix land after years, but they are pretty bare bones. You’re gonna have to overpay one of your own guys or make one of those Vanvleet signings just to hit the salary floor. You’re pretty much free to do whatever you want and should be reeling in top 5ish picks this year and next at the very least. Preferably for a third year. Then you get serious.


You act like making the salary floor is some kind of big deal. It's not.

FVV is actually a good player and his deal is only 3 years with a team option in year 3. Poole sucks and is signed for 4 years with no team option. One deal is much worse than the other.

There are 3 ways to improve the team: draft, trades and free agency. It isn't just draft or bust.

Given the contracts the new mgt team has given out i am sure they regret trading for Poole's. Kuzma's deal ends at the same time as Poole's. In that last year Poole will be making $15 million more than Kuzma.

[Kblaze8855]

And you have to add $72 million more than you currently have slated to hit the salary floor that year. Not the cap. The floor. And while staying under it does no tangible harm all it means you arent actually saving money if you pay any less at that point. he can make one dollar or 75 million the team has to pay the amount of the salary floor. That’s why the individual salaries of bad players on tanking teams is irrelevant. The number means nothing more than the feelings you attached to it. It doesn’t even exist. Unless they overpay somebody it’s entirely possible he doesn’t make 34 million that season. He could make 34,000,000+ whatever it is short of the minimum.

You don’t think owners factor something like that in? That the contracts are essentially free at low enough team salary numbers?

now the league did change the room so you don’t pay your own players the difference. You pay it into a league wide pool the players get to break up amongst themselves. So the individual bonuses aren’t as big .But you have to pay it. And you’re no longer allowed to simply trade for a big contract at the trade deadline. you can’t do what teams did with Chris Paul and Al Horford and others. Teams used to trade for giant contracts at the last minute so they don’t have to pay the start of the season. Now you have to be in compliance on day one of the season or you pay the money right then.

The teams know how this work. If they don’t want to add salary they don’t think it helps them long-term? They can sign nothing but their own draft picks and a couple young guys with potential to grow and let Jordan‘s contract be eaten up by the mandatory minimum, they would have to pay anyway.

You would know better than I do, which of your young players are worth of giving a contract, but one thing is certain. They have complete flexibility because none of their contracts are significant enough To do anything, but keep them at the bare minimum

[tontoz]

It is pointless to speculate about the cap 3-4 years from now. The bottom line is a salary cap league it makes no sense to sign bad players to big, long term deals even if it is to reach the salary floor. Smart teams don't do that.

The Nuggets have one guy who makes over $34 million this season and that is the 2 time MVP.

I assume mgt thought that Poole would rebound and play like he did in his second season. So far that has been a horrible miscalculation.

I am pretty sure they will resign Tyus. There is mutual interest.

[Kblaze8855]

I’ll just say this. my previous speculation has, if anything been too conservative. There are things we can know if you just read what they put in place about how to roll over additional revenue to prevent a single year spike like the one that got Durant to the Warriors.

I don’t blame you for not keeping up with it because such things are boring to most people. I’m just warning you. Lot of us so-called old heads will be rolling in our proverbial graves when we see the absolute garbage our teams have to sign to $180 million contracts.

You gonna be sending Jordan Poole 2am “U up?” texts Begging him to take the 27 he gets now When this rights deal gets done. If it’s even 40% of projections You will be begging a role-player to take 200 million. These cheap ass owners arent giving these deals out for fun. Everybody paid now is somebody you don’t have to pay under the new structure.

The names we are going to see go across the bottom of our screen having signed for 270 million are gonna force an adjustment in old peoples blood pressure medicine. I’m just trying to lessen the shock

[warriorfan]

To say there are no such things as bad contracts in a league with some sort of salary cap is just stupid.

[Kblaze8855]

To say there are no such things as bad contracts in a league with some sort of salary cap is just stupid.


If I said it I might feel a need to explain. But what I said is:




there is no such thing as a crippling contract in the NBA anymore.



Literally 100% of the ones that people like you pretend will cripple the team that signed it either get paid without disaster or get comfortably moved around as needed. The wizard signed the deal and he asked for a trade, and he was sent to a team that managed to do it and keep two other guys like it. The owners managed to finagle it, so even the giant ass Supermax contracts can be folded, entertain comfortably, even with another couple of them.

it’s the benefit of a salary cap that caps the people like curry so much lower than his actual value. Make everyone from a borderline Allstar to a top all-time guy cost roughly the same. You have a lot more wiggle room. If you had to pay the actual top guys what they’re worth, one of them might get hurt and actually have a crippling contract.

As it is? 45 to 50 is two role players. A true Supermax guy like Giannis is more valuable than some entire teams. But he’s only paid Bruce Brown plus Jordan Clarkson.

Nobody has a contract big enough to make it nearly as cumbersome as the dollar amounts feel like they should be.

you signed a Supermax and by the time it kicks in two years later you being paid the same as the 16th best center in the league plus a solid seventh man.

you always took the name to me more than it did. None of this was ever about any of these players as individuals. Fans just need to understand that at this point teams can assemble pretty much any lineup they want to for about three years. Only the repeater penalty luxury tax is really punitive.

Steph, Jokic, and Giannis fit on one team money wise. Any team that doesn’t have a super team it’s because the owner chooses not to spend the money or nobody wants to play for that organization or in that city. The cap is too big to stop you at this point. You take a year or two cleaning house You could find a way to add any two players in the league to any existing Supermax guy and fill it in with veterans.

You can’t cripple a team with one contract anymore. If the owner wants to get in the game, he can get in the game.

[warriorfan]

Austin Reeves signs a 2 billion dollar deal

Kblaze: Well there is a cap floor and something something something and the cap will be rising in the future

[Kblaze8855]

The rules Would not allow him to sign such a deal. But if it let him Sign his Max contract as poor a decision as it would be it would still allow the team that signed it to add the contracts of any two other players in the league, if they wanted to play with him.

Now, if he could sign a contract equivalent to those signed back in the day with smaller numbers that aren’t eye popping the percentage of the cap he would be taking up, would make it impossible to do that.

The NBA has won a series of battles to mitigate the impact of contracts even as they grow larger. We went from deals being 25 years to the biggest being 15 and then 12 to 7 year max contracts down to five and now people sign for four. The figures go up but how much harm you can do yourself long-term goes down. The owners have won at every turn, but the dollar amounts make fans think they’re really hurting by giving out these deals.

It was both a business and a PR win. It certainly helps get them off the hook when they just don’t feel like building a super team because they aren’t a High revenue operation. Perfect excuse. Like when Paul George told the Pacers an unnamed superstar power forward wanted to play with him.

You just plead poverty. In truth, they can do whatever the **** they want with the top of the roster if they’re willing to fill the bottom of it with veterans And draft picks. You’re letting them off the hook. Some teams just don’t want it that bad.

[warriorfan]

3ball has been banned for far less than this garbage

[Kblaze8855]

Youre free to stubbornly not learn anything but if you don’t want to be talked to about a subject try not bringing it up. That often works for me.

[warriorfan]

Tell me more about bradley beal’s contract. i legit laugh out loud every
time.


Educate me.

[Kblaze8855]

At this point you’re just being willfully ignorant and dishonest. you said it was an albatross contract they would be stuck with. They paid a fraction of it and traded him easily when it was time. It did absolutely no harm to the team that signed it and they got picks out of it. That alone makes you factually incorrect. The fact that his contract is now on a team with two other guys one of which makes more than he does and the other is on a super max is even more proof. His contract is not large enough to keep a team from having other stars.

you are factually wrong on every point you were making at this point. All you have left is the hopes they don’t win a title, which is a long way from being destroyed or crippled, which you said would happen to any team that had his contract on it.

You don’t appear to have the maturity to acknowledge it, but it has done no tangible harm to anyone. But you feel a need to bring it up once a month or so as if all your initial claims weren’t already disproven the moment the team that signed it easily got out from under it with no harm done.

None of it is going to sink in because you decided in advance you couldn’t be wrong. Doesn’t make it true. These contracts just aren’t as significant and immobile as people like you always think they are. The next one won’t be either. But you’ll have the same thing to say. Then it will also prove to be of no consequence.

[ImKobe]

Beal's contract is terrible. That's a fact. There's no way around it. That's like justifying Tobias Harris' contract in 2019. Philly tried to trade his ass for years and no one went for it. They paid 35-40 mil a year for a glorified role player. At least Harris has been healthy and consistent in his production for the most part, can't say the same about Beal since he signed that deal.

[Axe]

Beal's contract is terrible. That's a fact. There's no way around it. That's like justifying Tobias Harris' contract in 2019. Philly tried to trade his ass for years and no one went for it. They paid 35-40 mil a year for a glorified role player. At least Harris has been healthy and consistent in his production for the most part, can't say the same about Beal since he signed that deal.
Zach lavine of the bulls sit close to him lol. I mean his contract.

[warriorfan]

At this point you’re just being willfully ignorant and dishonest. you said it was an albatross contract they would be stuck with. They paid a fraction of it and traded him easily when it was time. It did absolutely no harm to the team that signed it and they got picks out of it. That alone makes you factually incorrect. The fact that his contract is now on a team with two other guys one of which makes more than he does and the other is on a super max is even more proof. His contract is not large enough to keep a team from having other stars.

you are factually wrong on every point you were making at this point. All you have left is the hopes they don’t win a title, which is a long way from being destroyed or crippled, which you said would happen to any team that had his contract on it.

You don’t appear to have the maturity to acknowledge it, but it has done no tangible harm to anyone. But you feel a need to bring it up once a month or so as if all your initial claims weren’t already disproven the moment the team that signed it easily got out from under it with no harm done.

None of it is going to sink in because you decided in advance you couldn’t be wrong. Doesn’t make it true. These contracts just aren’t as significant and immobile as people like you always think they are. The next one won’t be either. But you’ll have the same thing to say. Then it will also prove to be of no consequence.

this is max cringe

[Kblaze8855]

Beal's contract is terrible. That's a fact. There's no way around it. That's like justifying Tobias Harris' contract in 2019. Philly tried to trade his ass for years and no one went for it. They paid 35-40 mil a year for a glorified role player. At least Harris has been healthy and consistent in his production for the most part, can't say the same about Beal since he signed that deal.

when Harris‘s contract is small enough that you can also have Harden and Embiid on the team it’s not doing tangible harm. The 76ers are 16th in salary. They were 15th before that. They got up to 7th before that just behind Utah. Only year higher they were the top seed that year Ben had the refusal to dunk it moment vs the Hawks. They definitely have not been short on talent. No contract that can coexist with two other top players is the issue. The issue is them choosing Harris instead of Jimmy Butler. Harris at 32 instead of 37 they drop down to a bottom 10 payroll in the league last year. But you aren’t adding anyone significant with $5 million in savings that still has you over the cap.

Pay him 25 they’re capped out anyway. The problem isn’t how much he was paid. It was choosing to pay him in the first place when they should’ve paid Jimmy Butler.

I don’t know how many Max players people think a team is supposed to be able to have. They have reduced the top pay so you can generally accommodate three of them. We think team should be able to have four? Five? And for the record teams can do that as well if they want to make the massive luxury tax payment the Warriors made to win that last title.

As I’ve been saying, we give cheap teams too much leeway. Anyone who decides they want to go get a lot of talent can go get it if players are willing to play for your organization. A lot of teams just don’t attempt to do it. Big contracts no longer occupy enough of the cap to keep anyone down. You can no longer make a mistake like signing Juwan Howard for seven years where you pay him 43% of the cap(61 million today).

off the top of my head nobody these days get the deal big enough that you can’t build a borderline super team, even if they sat out completely. Last year you could take 40 million and throw it in the trash. Pay it to you or me to literally never arrive at the facility. You could do that I have the salary of the MVP that season(Embiid) And the MVP of the previous season(Jokic) And the $82 million short of the clippers payroll that year. Light 40 million on fire and pay two veteran MVPs. You can still spend 80 million and not have a highest payroll.

There is an absurd amount of wiggle room for teams that want to use it. I think we scapegoat the wrong people. Most teams that are shit are shit because they either can’t convince people to play for them or they choose the wrong ones be it draft or free agency. The system is rigged, so no individual you pay can be the reason your team isn’t talented. I’m really not sure it’s possible anymore. You can pay the wrong person. But you cant pay them enough to be the reason you suck anymore and fans let these owners cheap out without a peep way too often.

[Kblaze8855]

this is max cringe

whatever you want to call it. You called it a suicidal contract and one year later they traded it for the seventh pick in the draft(not that I have any idea if he will be good or not ), The ability to take the suns first rounders all the way out to 2030(which would be useful if he actually did destroy the suns), and they’re set to be under the cap this off-season next off-season and the one after that. They signed the contract, didn’t have to pay it, sent him where he decided, and got draft considerations and ended up with immense cap space going forward while tanking for picks. I don’t need you to say you were wrong. You aren’t stupid enough to not realize that isn’t suicide.

It’s exactly what I told you all those contracts were. A calculated overpay of second and third tier guys in order to implement a system, where you don’t have to pay the true legends what they’re worth. It all went exactly the way it was meant to go if bailing were the call by either side and the Wizards end up in position for a top 3 pick, with little salary on the books going forward, a bunch of pick swaps if the suns fall apart, a lottery pick from the previous year, and Beal gets to play with talent as his career winds down.

Win win. That can rarely be said of suicide.

[ImKobe]

when Harris‘s contract is small enough that you can also have Harden and Embiid on the team it’s not doing tangible harm. The 76ers are 16th in salary. They were 15th before that. They got up to 7th before that just behind Utah. Only year higher they were the top seed that year Ben had the refusal to dunk it moment vs the Hawks. They definitely have not been short on talent. No contract that can coexist with two other top players is the issue. The issue is them choosing Harris instead of Jimmy Butler. Harris at 32 instead of 37 they drop down to a bottom 10 payroll in the league last year. But you aren’t adding anyone significant with $5 million in savings that still has you over the cap.

Pay him 25 they’re capped out anyway. The problem isn’t how much he was paid. It was choosing to pay him in the first place when they should’ve paid Jimmy Butler.

I don’t know how many Max players people think a team is supposed to be able to have. They have reduced the top pay so you can generally accommodate three of them. We think team should be able to have four? Five? And for the record teams can do that as well if they want to make the massive luxury tax payment the Warriors made to win that last title.

As I’ve been saying, we give cheap teams too much leeway. Anyone who decides they want to go get a lot of talent can go get it if players are willing to play for your organization. A lot of teams just don’t attempt to do it. Big contracts no longer occupy enough of the cap to keep anyone down. You can no longer make a mistake like signing Juwan Howard for seven years where you pay him 43% of the cap(61 million today).

off the top of my head nobody these days get the deal big enough that you can’t build a borderline super team, even if they sat out completely. Last year you could take 40 million and throw it in the trash. Pay it to you or me to literally never arrive at the facility. You could do that I have the salary of the MVP that season(Embiid) And the MVP of the previous season(Jokic) And the $82 million short of the clippers payroll that year. Light 40 million on fire and pay two veteran MVPs. You can still spend 80 million and not have a highest payroll.

There is an absurd amount of wiggle room for teams that want to use it. I think we scapegoat the wrong people. Most teams that are shit are shit because they either can’t convince people to play for them or they choose the wrong ones be it draft or free agency. The system is rigged, so no individual you pay can be the reason your team isn’t talented. I’m really not sure it’s possible anymore. You can pay the wrong person. But you cant pay them enough to be the reason you suck anymore and fans let these owners cheap out without a peep way too often.


It's just not a good contract. You can defend it by saying that the team's over the cap anyway, but they can't move off that contract if they wanted to. They took on all that salary and gave up all those picks for someone who's slightly more productive than a 38 y.o Chris Paul. They're going to be limited in their roster moves and they're going to be in tax hell moving forward. Good luck.

[Kblaze8855]

Hell is a punishment, not a decision. The owner decided immediately on arrival this is what he wanted to do and they did it. The luxury tax is only a problem for an owner who says it’s a problem. The person paying it doesn’t care it does no tangible harm aside from factored in things like eligibility for certain options after buyouts. He’s a banking and mortgage billionaire. and a college basketball player. I have a feeling he understands what he agreed to pay and for how long and to who. You think the luxury tax implications snuck up on him and he found out after the deal? If he wants to use some of his 8 billion to stack players and give the whole Phoenix area the games for free over the air that’s his business.

We should have more owners like that, not less. The cheap ones just lose anyway. You can go for it or you can be the pacers:



“I ain’t gon’ say the names, because I’m going to keep their business private, I’ma just say it like this: I had, at the time, the best power forward saying he wanted to come to Indy and team up with me,” George explained. “They’re like, ‘We’re a mid-major, we’re a small market. We can’t do it. We’re a small market and we can’t afford that.’ I’m like, ‘The best power forward wants to come play here! Y’all can’t make that work?’ They didn’t want to do it.
“So, now I’m pissed because it’s like, ‘What am I doing here?’ You know what I mean? They don’t want to win. I’ve got the best power forward that wants to come play here. Not everybody chooses Indy to come play at, but this dude wanted to come play here! They didn’t want to do it.”
Instead, George said that the Pacers tried to sell him on a different power forward.
“They call me up and, again, I’m gonna leave the names out, but now this person that they’re talking about [signing instead] is maybe a Top 20 or Top 25 power forward,” George said. “They put him up like, ‘Hey, how do you feel about this person?’ This other person that they were gonna sign in free agency [was] coming off an injury; I didn’t feel comfortable with that. After that phone call, I’m like, ‘They don’t get it.’ I call my agent like, ‘Man, get me up out of here, they don’t want to win.'”




The suns probably won’t win the way they’re trying it. Teams like the Pacers definitely won’t win.

If you arent willing to risk it, stay out of the game.

not that the suns are even as locked in as you would assume. They have less salary on the books than the Timberwolves do two years from now. That off-season they’re only $3 million off the Hawks. If they choose to play it that way in two years they’re gonna go into an off-season paying Beal and Booker and still 20+ million under the cap of right now which is going to be higher by then.

They’re going to pay them both an obscene amount of money and be under the salary cap. I promise you a guy who has billionaire banker accountants has someone on the staff who knows those numbers.

Beal is going to be a $57 million expiring contract going into an off-season when they are already 20 to 30 million under if they want to go hunting. They’re gonna end up trading him and another several years worth of picks to some disgruntled stars team that will use his expiring deal to clear cap space to throw at some other guy. Beal gets bought out and signs with a contender like all the washed rich guys do.

None of it is as dire as fans think it is. They’re going to go for it for two years and be in perfect position to reset “**** them picks” style again. There is no such thing as a true long-term problem. The way the league has set up contracts? No more seven year Rashard Lewis deals.

Everyone is a couple years from being an asset. The NBA has totally removed long-term problems. You just go for it. If it doesn’t work, you change directions in two years. If you think they can’t all I can tell you is wait and see. It’s not as tough as you imagine.

[wagexslave]

They also beat the Nuggets the very next game.

Those 2 games are a perfect display of how this team has been all year. Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde ass season.

A big part of it is coaching, sadly. Vogel and the coaching staff just lets them go out there and live or die by sloppy iso ball most of the time. I still like Vogel in a playoff setting better than Monty, but this team would be so much better if they had an offensive guru coach who cares about the X's and O's, and had this team running more set plays with way more ball movement and guys getting involved. They're such a dangerous team when they're moving the ball and picking up the pace.

The coaching staff in general has failed to consistently keep them focused/motivated from game to game... even quarter to quarter they often play with completely different hustle levels. Beal even admitted the other night that they expected the Spurs game to be "easy". But it wasn't. This is the NBA. If a bad team plays a really good game for their level, and a good team plays a bad & lazy game for their level, generally the bad team will win. Regardless, there's no excuse to take teams lightly when you're fighting to avoid a play-in spot. Why even play with fire?

If they just played with the type of hustle and energy they brought vs the Nugs more often then they'll win so many more games. "Playing with their food" has cost them so many wins this year, especially when they take their foot off the gas and try to coast in 4th quarters. Shit's so annoying.

[highwhey]

https://thefader-res.cloudinary.com/private_images/w_1440,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:best/eholland_future_1_il7lfj/future-the-wizrd-video-interview.jpg