Suns lose to Wemby-less Spurs

[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 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.