And what is it that makes the number 12 so specially foreboding? More importantly, how the **** are you a doctor???
Quit overrating the 12 pick. It sucks.
- Thread starter green
- Start date
And what is it that makes the number 12 so specially foreboding? More importantly, how the **** are you a doctor???
You're silly
orangello
Well-Known Member
green
Well-Known Member
Exactly my point. IF you have the #1 pick, and someone offers you a player that is the #1 level or better, you take it.
Just like if you have #12, and someone offers you Barnes or Batum, you trade it. Even the #1 pick is no guarantee of success. Trading the #1 pick for a current All Pro is a better risk.
Look at Cleveland. Maybe Wiggins becomes the next Jordan. Maybe he sucks. Kevin Love is an All Pro PF. Make the trade. Love is a guarantee. Wiggins is a dream.
green
Well-Known Member
Kobe forced his way to LA. If Kobe hadn't forced his way to LA, he would have played for NJ Nets.
green
Well-Known Member
Nothing makes the #12 pick so foreboding. I'd be saying the same thing if we had the #10 pick. Or the #11. Or the #12. What makes the #12 pick what it is, is the fact that WE OWN THE PICK.
I am a doctor because I am smarter than you and work harder than you. Thats how. Pretty simple stuff. Be smart and work hard and you too can be a doctor. I did that. you didn't.
The biggest value(production/$ paid) in an NBA market that is capped both for teams and individual players, comes from two main sources:
1. Super stars - because their salaries are capped and usually their contributions are much higher than the salary they are being paid.
2. Rookie contract outplaying their rookie salary. That's why draft picks are extremely valuable. A lot of them outplay their salary by year 3 of the contract. And most rookie contracts are small enough as to not be any type of a detriment to the team even if they bust.
Of course there are others that massively outplay their contract, but those are much more rare because the league usually has had time to evaluate them for at least 4 years(their rookie contract) before they receive their next deal and it usually doesn't miss on great talents past their rookie contracts. Surprises with massive value gained with middling or low non-rookie contracts are rare and are usually triggered by injury concerns(i.e. Curry's contract, but now even if he was at max deal he'd still be a bargain).
This is why teams that have either superstars or great players on rookie contracts massively raise their level. Gaining value in those critical areas allows you to spend the rest of the salary cap in filling in the roster with players that usually would play at about their market value. For example, I would say Hayward and Favors play at about their market value.
Right now we have no super stars and we have 1 player on a rookie contract(Rudy) who is massively outplaying his contract. That's usually not enough.
For example, the Warriors right now have 1 superstar in Curry(arguably 2 if you include Bogut), 3 players in Klay, Green and Barnes that are massively outplaying their rookie contracts. That's why they can afford to pay 10-15 million each to several subs and have an all around great roster. And that's why they won't be able to keep all of their pieces once Green and Klay get max and the time comes for Barnes to get paid.
I hope you don't misunderstand this post to mean - picks are always better than an established player who will most likely play to his market value. I am not saying that. I am saying there are nuances in those considerations and all kinds of stuff factor into them - at what point of the development of the team we are, what is the make up of our current roster, are we at the point where we are set with our group and we are ready to contend, or do we need more young pieces who are likely to outplay their contract, what are reasonable expectations for our other young pieces, or even our non-rookie pieces(are they likely to outplay their contracts in the next several years), etc.
I personally wouldn't mind trading the pick for Barnes, I think he's probably better than what we can get at 12 but you also have to factor in his contract situation - he will have to get paid next year and would we be willing to do it. Keep in mind that this will be the year when everybody will have a ton of money and he will very likely get close to max money which would be about 23-24M. If we are unwilling to match any offer, is it worth trading a lottery pick for 1 year of him? Similar considerations with Batum(we might lose him for nothing in 1 year time)...
1. Super stars - because their salaries are capped and usually their contributions are much higher than the salary they are being paid.
2. Rookie contract outplaying their rookie salary. That's why draft picks are extremely valuable. A lot of them outplay their salary by year 3 of the contract. And most rookie contracts are small enough as to not be any type of a detriment to the team even if they bust.
Of course there are others that massively outplay their contract, but those are much more rare because the league usually has had time to evaluate them for at least 4 years(their rookie contract) before they receive their next deal and it usually doesn't miss on great talents past their rookie contracts. Surprises with massive value gained with middling or low non-rookie contracts are rare and are usually triggered by injury concerns(i.e. Curry's contract, but now even if he was at max deal he'd still be a bargain).
This is why teams that have either superstars or great players on rookie contracts massively raise their level. Gaining value in those critical areas allows you to spend the rest of the salary cap in filling in the roster with players that usually would play at about their market value. For example, I would say Hayward and Favors play at about their market value.
Right now we have no super stars and we have 1 player on a rookie contract(Rudy) who is massively outplaying his contract. That's usually not enough.
For example, the Warriors right now have 1 superstar in Curry(arguably 2 if you include Bogut), 3 players in Klay, Green and Barnes that are massively outplaying their rookie contracts. That's why they can afford to pay 10-15 million each to several subs and have an all around great roster. And that's why they won't be able to keep all of their pieces once Green and Klay get max and the time comes for Barnes to get paid.
I hope you don't misunderstand this post to mean - picks are always better than an established player who will most likely play to his market value. I am not saying that. I am saying there are nuances in those considerations and all kinds of stuff factor into them - at what point of the development of the team we are, what is the make up of our current roster, are we at the point where we are set with our group and we are ready to contend, or do we need more young pieces who are likely to outplay their contract, what are reasonable expectations for our other young pieces, or even our non-rookie pieces(are they likely to outplay their contracts in the next several years), etc.
I personally wouldn't mind trading the pick for Barnes, I think he's probably better than what we can get at 12 but you also have to factor in his contract situation - he will have to get paid next year and would we be willing to do it. Keep in mind that this will be the year when everybody will have a ton of money and he will very likely get close to max money which would be about 23-24M. If we are unwilling to match any offer, is it worth trading a lottery pick for 1 year of him? Similar considerations with Batum(we might lose him for nothing in 1 year time)...
Nice.
The Fresh Prince
Well-Known Member
Waiting for our 12th pick to turn into an all star so this thread can be bumped gloriously.
I think that a Batum or Barnes would at best be a marginal improvement over what we've got, and I lean toward standing pat as being a better move. If Barnes substitutes for Burks, sure.
What kind of doctor are you, green?
What kind of doctor are you, green?
Thee Jazz Fan
Well-Known Member
I'd rather draft a player in hopes he's better. In that case the franchise is et up for years. Chances are we get a role player at a tenth of the cost of a batum. While he may not be as good he still helps, plus... We turn around and use the money we would've used on Batum for the player of our choice at the money and years we want. Those lotto contracts are becoming very valuable
But but but... Hack swears he's going to be good. Lol
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
If it's a 5 year deal does that mean we would have to max him? Are you suggesting we should max barnes? I hope not