Reasons to Keep Matthews

[write4u]

IMHO, the Jazz need to match the offer for Matthews. The pluses far outweigh the minuses. Let's break them down.

Pluses:

1. Matthews fits the Jazz system
2. He plays both ends of the court and has great heart and determination
3. He's a good finisher with great open court speed
4. He's a hard worker who has years ahead of him and who will continue to improve
5. He's a clutch player not afraid to take a shot or make a play at crunch time
6. He's a humble guy with a great attitude
7. He's the two guard the Jazz have beening pining for, for more than a decade

Minuses:

1. Matthews is undersized
2. He needs to work on his passing
3. Second year players aren't worth the offer Matthews is getting
4. The Jazz can get adequate players, like Brewer, to replace him for half or less the money

If people want to add to these lists, feel free. I did not include the minus that he has reached his ceiling because I believe it is ludicrous to make such a statement about a young player who has played only one year in the NBA, especially one with the heart and determination of Matthews. In the final analysis I think the main argument against the Jazz matching is financial. However, signing won't put us in LT territory, and if my understanding of the current Jazz finances is correct, we still will have enough money to sign other players we need, like Fes.

 

[Hopper]

[*]Second year players aren't worth the offer Matthews is getting

I aint really read your whole thread yet, Write, but thought I would stop right here to point out one thing. NOBUDDY seriously argues that no second year player is "worth" what Matthews is gittin. It's simply that the CBA PROHIBITS the league from payin that, at least if the guy was drafted. This has nuthin to do with "worth." It has to do with the players conspiring with the owners to screw futures draftees so that both could make more money for themselves, that's all.

As far as CBA restrictions go, this has also been pointed out elsewhere: The offer to Matthews, which the Jazz have the right to match, is the absolute maximum which Portland is ALLOWED to offer--even if they thought he was "worth," and even if they would otherwise be willing to offer, twice as much for him.

 

[billyshelby]

8. He walks old ladies across the street.
9. He rescues kittens from trees.
10. He doesn't chew with his mouth open.
11. He's hilarious at cocktail parties.
12. He's an excellent dancer.
13. He might not be done growing.

 

[Shaggy]

#14 he's not white.

 

[tatermoog]

15. You can't find guards who give you 9.5/2/1.5 in 25MPG just anywhere.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

15. You can't find guards who give you 9.5/2/1.5 in 25MPG just anywhere.

Not at 48%, 38%, 83%, you can't.

 

[Jeditiger]

I think the kid is going to be something special and I hope we end up keeping him.

 

[write4u]

And he always drinks Dos Equis ...

 

[Stifle Tower]

Not at 48%, 38%, 83%, you can't.

And that's the main reason for matching. If he can duplicate those %'s for 30+ mins, and he gets more opportunities to shoot because our PF won't be the focal point of the offense anymore, then it's not too unrealistic to expect Matthews to average 16-18 pts/per game. If I'm a coach with a guard shooting those kind of %'s, I want him to keep shooting.

Case in point: some of the top SG's in the NBA last season:
W. Matthews - 48.3%
R. Allen - 47.7%
D Wade - 47.6%
B. Roy - 47.4%
J. Johnson - 45.8%


And a lot of the other guys we value aorund here such as Ginobili, Iguodala, Gordon, Terry, Crawford (wasn't he the 6th man of the year?), are in the 44-45% range.

Now I'm not suggesting Matthews is going to be a superstar. And I'm not going to bother to look up Matthews' outside shooting vs. drives. I can't believe it's that much different than a Dwade or Roy, though. Those guys take it inside all the time. Unfortunately, Matthews was undrafted so he's not locked in to a rookie deal. But $7M/per is a long ways from DWade/Johnson money. Maybe Portland is on to something. Give Matthews 12-13 shots per game (vs. the 7 he averaged) and he could put up some great numbers. Is 18/pts per game on 45% shooting worth $6M+. Probably so in today's market, especially for a guy who's willing to also play defense.

Dunno...I may have changed my mind here and am in support of matching his contract.

Look, we're never going to defeat the Lakers inside. But Boston proved in their victories you can shoot over them. Allen, Pierce and Rondo were way too inconsisent. But having Matthews, Deron, CJ and now, Hayward. Those are four pretty good weapons. Gordon is still weak on his 3's, but he sure showed he can hit from 15-18 with consistency.

 

[Harcher]

"15. You can't find guards who give you 9.5/2/1.5 in 25MPG just anywhere. "

Not at 48%, 38%, 83%, you can't.

John Salmons has a new 5 year $39M contract. His percentages are almost the same over the last couple of years (8 year vet to get there) but averages 2x points (19ish) and plays 38mpg. I don't think that Wes goes to 19ppg in 38min (system doesn't really allow that and its only 13 more mins a game), but he'd proably be at 12-13ppg with 38mpg's and same %'s (effectiveness.) So is John Salmons overpaid at 8/year?

Maybe this is really Millsap all over: At first it was a bit higher than expected, but really, looks to be a fair (or better) $value. I like Wes. Last night I said no way to this contract. But it was late and i couldn't believe the numbers. I could be softening up.

I think BillyShelby can help us understand how he is rated 28th in everything for shooting guards when I see him compared to Salmons looking more worth it. 7.0/year is probably average NBA pay. Billy, If Wes gets 35mpg would he rate as an average NBA wing? He has the efficiency of Salmons yet only 23 years old (Salmons matured after 4 years)

The next measure is how good is his defense really? Bruce Bowen? Raja Bell? ... Ronnie Brewer? He can and will get better than he is today at defense for certain.

Another late night logical conundrum reading all 300 posts last night: Most of us believe he's BETTER than Korver today. Korver got 5/year. Korver's at his peak about after 7ish years in the league. So Wes should be on an upswing - Maybe 7/year isn't so bad??

 

[Harcher]

Also, what are the alternatives? Can someone get Chad Ford's list off ESPN. that would help us GM's out a little.

 

[Stifle Tower]

Also, what are the alternatives? Can someone get Chad Ford's list off ESPN. that would help us GM's out a little.

The alternatives are:
1. Keep AK at SF and have CJ start at SG. Sign a player to backup Millsap at PF.
A. Hayward becomes the primary back and gets 20+ mins.

2. AK splits time between SF and backup PF.
A. CJ starts at SG. AK starts at SF.
B. Sign a guy like Brewer to give rotation mins.
C. Hayward can be limited to 10 mins/per as a rookie.

3. Bold move:
A. Start Hayward at SG. Hey, Matthews was an untested, undrafted rookie. Hayward is a better ball-handler. He'll get beaten some initially, but his size will bother opposing 2's, especially on the other end.
B. CJ or AK starts at SF.
C. Sign a SG to backup Hayward.

 

[mfree]

The only real downside is that it puts the Jazz so close to the LT that it likely means not acquiring another post player. Remember how mad everybody was about drafting Hayward because the Jazz needed a big guy in the middle?

If you don't match, you have the opportunity to get both a Brewer type, and another post player. If you do match, you are likely done until the deadline.

 

[Hopper]

Also, what are the alternatives? Can someone get Chad Ford's list off ESPN.

Emotions and general principles aside, Harcher, this is the main question. Of all the FA and RFA's out there, Matthews is the only one left who the Jazz have the absolute right to sign if they want to.

Can they pay less? No doubt, but they would probably also get less. How much less, and is still a better overall "deal?" Strictly a matter of judgment.

There are probably guys out there that would require more to sign, but you would still probably get less. It's possible that there are some that you could get for less, but still get as much, or even more, in performance from. Of course money is it's own concern. James may be a better "bargain" even at his high salary, than our second rounder is at his low salary, but that doesn't mean we can get, let alone afford James, so.....

The argument that even second year players who were drafted #1 make less is an irrelevant non sequitur. Many here quickly say it is simply "too much" to pay without demonstrating that they have actually given any real thought to either a cost vs benefit analyis or a careful look at the same with respect to available alternatives. Mebbe somebuddy knows a D-leaguer who's better than Matthews and who would sign cheap, even to a multi-year contract. If so, best tell KOC now, not later, after he becomes a star for another team, and then complain that KOC shoulda got him.

 

[billyshelby]

"15. You can't find guards who give you 9.5/2/1.5 in 25MPG just anywhere. "


John Salmons has a new 5 year $39M contract. His percentages are almost the same over the last couple of years (8 year vet to get there) but averages 2x points (19ish) and plays 38mpg. I don't think that Wes goes to 19ppg in 38min (system doesn't really allow that and its only 13 more mins a game), but he'd proably be at 12-13ppg with 38mpg's and same %'s (effectiveness.) So is John Salmons overpaid at 8/year?

Maybe this is really Millsap all over: At first it was a bit higher than expected, but really, looks to be a fair (or better) $value. I like Wes. Last night I said no way to this contract. But it was late and i couldn't believe the numbers. I could be softening up.

I think BillyShelby can help us understand how he is rated 28th in everything for shooting guards when I see him compared to Salmons looking more worth it. 7.0/year is probably average NBA pay. Billy, If Wes gets 35mpg would he rate as an average NBA wing? He has the efficiency of Salmons yet only 23 years old (Salmons matured after 4 years)

The next measure is how good is his defense really? Bruce Bowen? Raja Bell? ... Ronnie Brewer? He can and will get better than he is today at defense for certain.

Another late night logical conundrum reading all 300 posts last night: Most of us believe he's BETTER than Korver today. Korver got 5/year. Korver's at his peak about after 7ish years in the league. So Wes should be on an upswing - Maybe 7/year isn't so bad??

1. The comparison between Salmons and Matthews goes like this, per 48, relative to all "listed" 2 guards on ESPN:

Wes: Scoring (27th); Rebounding (29th); Assists (28th); Steals (17th); Blocks (28th)
Salmons: Scoring (18th); Rebounding (28th); Assists (19th); Steals (14th); Blocks (20th)

Salmons is better (statistically), but you can argue how significantly better he is.

2. Here's the problem that I think gets too often overlooked. The Bucks have 8 years of data on Salmons. They might be overpaying, they might not, but they know exactly what they're paying for. We only have one year of data on Wes. There's no way to know what he'll continue to do. But he's not worth it at his current production. He's an albatross if he regresses. And thus he HAS to improve if the deal will make sense which is too much of a gamble. Especially when he isn't a good athlete by NBA standards.

 

[Shaggy]

1. The comparison between Salmons and Matthews goes like this, per 48, relative to all "listed" 2 guards on ESPN:

Wes: Scoring (27th); Rebounding (29th); Assists (28th); Steals (17th); Blocks (28th)
Salmons: Scoring (18th); Rebounding (28th); Assists (19th); Steals (14th); Blocks (20th)

Salmons is better (statistically), but you can argue how significantly better he is.

2. Here's the problem that I think gets too often overlooked. The Bucks have 8 years of data on Salmons. They might be overpaying, they might not, but they know exactly what they're paying for. We only have one year of data on Wes. There's no way to know what he'll continue to do. But he's not worth it at his current production. He's an albatross if he regresses. And thus he HAS to improve if the deal will make sense which is too much of a gamble. Especially when he isn't a good athlete by NBA standards.

I'm not accusing you of this but a lot of people here say the Jazz need to take more risks, right? Well this might be the time. The Jazz FO needs to **** or get off the pot. eh?

 

[billyshelby]

I'm not accusing you of this but a lot of people here say the Jazz need to take more risks, right? Well this might be the time. The Jazz FO needs to **** or get off the pot. eh?

Yeah, but poor athleticism likely means a low ceiling. If I'm paying MLE money, I either want a Vet who has proven skills to fill a need, or a guy I project to have a lot of upside. Unlike other people, I think what Wes did last year is about what he'll continue to do. I'm not sold he'll be as good a shooter going forward (he actually shot better as a pro than as a senior in college which has to be pretty rare.) I am sold Wes will continue to improve on D, and will probably post slight improvements over time in most of his ancillary numbers. But he's have to improve a lot to be worth that contract.

 

[Stifle Tower]

2. Here's the problem that I think gets too often overlooked. The Bucks have 8 years of data on Salmons. They might be overpaying, they might not, but they know exactly what they're paying for. We only have one year of data on Wes. There's no way to know what he'll continue to do. But he's not worth it at his current production. He's an albatross if he regresses. And thus he HAS to improve if the deal will make sense which is too much of a gamble. Especially when he isn't a good athlete by NBA standards.

Or to play devil's advocate:
After 8 years, especially after a player reaches his 30's, production generally declines. So Salmons may already be at/very near his peak (he's already 31 yrs. old). On the other hand, Matthews is only 24. And his per game statistics, especially pts/per are misleading. Look at FG%, not points. Give him more shots (he had less than 7/per) and he potentially doubles his scoring average, especially since the offense will be more diverse with Carlos gone. If I'm going to "overpay," I'd much rather take a risk on a player who is likely on an upswing, rather than a player who is likely at the top and could significantly decline.

I agree that having 1 year of data is a gamble. But you also have to look at the character of Matthews. I think it is very unlikely he quits working on his game once he signs the big contract, a la AK47. More likely he continues to work hard. That just seems to be his basic nature. And you can't teach that. It's what makes average players, good and good players, great.

I have to admit I'm torn on this one. I can make a compelling argument to keep Matthews. And I can make just as strong a case to let Portland eat his contract. I know this is a sad thing to say, but I'll be happy when Allen is gone and a new group takes over. Hopefully they won't try to screw over Utah each season.

 

[billyshelby]

I'm definitely not arguing Salmons was worth his deal. In fact, the Hollinger piece on it sums it up best. They overpaid because their cap situation would have made it impossible to get anyone comparable. Additionally, there isn't much point to my mind comparing this contract to that contract. Joe Johnson's deal makes everything sound reasonable.

All the Jazz have to do is figure out how much upside Matthews really has. His numbers and athleticism do not indicate a guy with upside. Normally, this isn't even an issue because he'd be locked down for 3 more years on cheap deals. We'd find out painlessly. In this unique situation, we're being asked to push our chips into the middle and decide right NOW what type of player Wes will be. No way should they take that risk for that money.

 

[Hopper]

As I recall, some posters on this board were insisting that Williams should not be given a contract longer than 3 years, and some, perhaps many, were insisting that he should NEVER be given the max. Probably some of the same ones who now worry because Deron can now opt out of his contract in 2 years.