[MatosParticipant]

We all know how jacked up some of the player contracts are in the league (Allen Crabbe, Kent Bazemore, etc), but I often think about contracts specifically on contending teams. I am of the belief that player salaries should be weighted in a sense that the money given to players on a contender should be held with much higher regard than a non-contender. What I mean by this is that when we assess a player like Tristan Thompson, I totally understand that he does a good job as a basketball player and may be productive enough on a non-contending team to justify his $18mil/yr contract. But on a team like the Cavs, who are legitimate championship threats, they’re going to need more from someone who they’re paying $18mil/yr. That chunk of change (18mil) is worth more than Atlanta’s 18mil, which is worth more than Brooklyn’s 18mil. I see a lot of people trying to justify TT’s contract and I’m sitting here thinking that he’s not playing 18mil/yr championship basketball. That (to me) makes him expendable. Especially with the way the W’s are competing. This type of committed salary for the Cavs is what is hindering them from adding another all-start this offseason.

What are yalls thoughts on this subject? 

[kerrstParticipant]

 Cleveland needs to look into moving TT for a player that fits their salary structure and championship aspirations.  TT did not help Cleveland at all for matching up with GS.  A 3 and D wing like Danny Green would add so much more value at a far cheaper price.  Green to Cleveland, TT to Toronto and JV to San Antonio seems like a win for all teams involved.

[ChoppyParticipant]

 Wasn’t that the whole premise of the "Moneyball" movement? To find value in players that others might not see? How many players, when given an opportunity, thrive? Is there someone on a much friendlier contract that could provide TT’s production? Probably, as rebounding is an effort stat. I think rebounding is probably the easiest statistical category to replace with a cheaper alternative. You could probably rattle off a dozen cheaper bigs who rebound and defend as well as TT. He’s definitely not ‘elite’ but he’s being paid like he is. 

The thing is though, LeBron likes TT, he has chemistry with the team, he fits what they’re doing and he’s unselfish. These are things that can’t be quantified by analytics. Is he worth 18mil? In a vacuum, no. But there is more going on than just numbers. Would I want TT on MY team? For 18mil? No way. On the Cavs, it kinda makes sense.

[ndbigdaveParticipant]

Yes this is part of the Moneyball philosophy – maximizing value, identifying what each player brings to the table (at least statistically) and then finding undervalued assets that can meet/exceed what you need.

In the unbalanced MLB without a cap and definitely “haves and have-nots” it was imperative for teams like the A’s to employ the strategy (though the concept is smart for those with deep pockets too) – the issue in the NBA (and true in the MLB) is that it is a revolving door. Tristan Thompson (as he is the example used by the OP) WAS a good deal on the rookie wage (actually producing surplus value) but one on the open market he became a negative value (based on his wages compared to production) the only way to replicate the situation was to draft another player or find someone more reasonably priced (which is the real difficulty) if a guy has demonstrated almost any NBA level ability on a rookie wage contract or “first contract” the next contract usually swings heavily in the player’s favor and the value for the team is negative (only the true superstars avoid being a negative on their 2nd and 3rd contracts) – not only are you spending too much for that one player, there are opportunity costs associated with losing other players (you cant pay everyone) and by not finding other pieces for your starting line-up or bench.

No team does it perfectly, but the ability to identify talent and then develop talent are the two biggest things a front office/coaching staff can do. Bringing in players each year on cost-controlled contracts and spending only on the players you know you cannot replace or who are truly deemed worthy is key for flexibility in the future. The good modern NBA franchise will now leverage the G-League and 2-way contracts as their true development system and “minor league” to bring prospects along, give them minutes, determine if the player has a future and then replace veterans who will be too costly to keep. There are now shades of how the MLB and NHL brings younger players along and front offices need to take a page from the Patriots of the NFL by letting players go perhaps a “season too early” rather than being saddled with a over-prices veteran that handicaps roster building.

[mgreener_34Participant]

 Because finding that player B is easier said than done. If you decide not to pay player A, and they walk, you aren’t guaranteed a player of similar value or contribution will walk through the door. Tons of teams have employeed this strategy. For some it blew up in their face, and others it saved their franchise. 

The Celtics did it with Perkins, and it blew up in their face. 5 years later and we still haven’t found his replacement. 

Look what OKC did with the Harden fiasco…

The Warriors gave Monta away, and it was the best move that franchise made up until last offseason. 

The Jazz did it with Milsap and Big Al, and it worked out literally perfectly for them. 

History tells us that OP is right, but you better have a player to bring back. J Green was a failure in Boston, and we lost our only post presense. Kevin Martin did not replicate James Harden off the bench, and that ultimately coincided with OKC signing Olidipo to a 21 mil deal. Probably what Harden would have gotten paid, but he’s half the player. If you go into it with a plan like the Jazz did 3/4 years ago, then absolutely, save the money, but if not, I think its best to just sign the player and try to compete. 

 

 

 

[Author]

Posts