per 36 FT stats are rather disingenuous. IMO.
Burks is top 15 in the league in FT attempts per minute, top 7 among guards in FTAs per 36, and is top 5 among guards in FTA per FGA.
Hayward in year three - 5.0 FTA per 36; Burks 6.1 FTA per 36. That's about a 20% difference - not really close. And G-time is pretty good at getting to the line - just not elite like Burks.
I'll go ahead and say we're not overrating his ability to get to the FT line.
$11mm for a guy who "could absolutely grow into a fourth or fifth starter on a good team."?
$11mm for a guy who "could absolutely grow into a fourth or fifth starter on a good team."? Where's the money coming from when you're paying your 4th and 5th 15% of the cap (assuming it grows to $70mm).
Miami's 4th and 5th best made $7.3mm combined last season.
San Antonio's 4th and 5th best did make $17.5mm combined, but that's only because Parker and Duncan were both severely underpaid.
Call me crazy, but I actually think Burks has a better starters game while Hayward is more suited coming off the bench, also in my opinion, had Burks been drafted first then Hayward second, we'd be viewing Burks as a better starter and thinking of Hayward as a natural 6th man.I would say yes to your question if not for one thing.
Hayward got injured and missed 5 games. Burks started those games and was better than when he came off the bench. Also the team had a better winning percentage during those 5 games than they did for the year.
It's not like Burks has never started before
The notion Burks is some lifelong 6th man is utter crap. He has great size and athleticism for his position. We just watched the USA comfortably win the gold by shooting, for the most part, step back jumpers. Every other team had better chemistry, but it didn't matter because we were 2" longer at each position and could jump 5 inches higher than their guys. There would be an argument if Burks couldn't hit a three or pass the ball, but 35% is quite respectable as is 3.4 assists, both above league average for SGs.
You simply do not pay that for someone that sits that far down the pecking order. But he doesn't have a crystal ball and his word isn't quite gospel.
I think he can be a legit 3rd option in a legit lineup or a 1st option on a **** lineup (like he's already done).
If he can be a legit and consistent third option, inside a good offense, then let him prove it and pay him the money. There's no way in hell I'd extend him at the upper range given here -- the only corner in the world that views Burks as worth more than maybe $8-9mm (not even SB nation voters thought that).
So far he's shown the offense cannot go through him and he requires someone to create for him. I see third options more like Barbosa, Ginobili, Kevin Martin, etc. Someone who can create with all the pressure and focus still on them. Is Burks that guy? Will he become that guy?
BTW, I'm predicting his 3pt% and improved defense this season earns him an extra million or two. He's not the 36% 3 point shooter his stat says he is, but can he do better in a more airy system?
I've held some low opinions of Burks. I'd be loathe to feel those after what I'm feeling now. Might break muh heart.
Man I remember after a game early last season just feeling like he was done. Looked absolutely awful.
I very much enjoyed his turnaround last year, because I thought he might be out of the league.