Why Not to Spend - Cheapskate Edition

[OldSkoolCool]

3.) Chill out on insulting tone.

**Cough cough

You don't know what you're talking about here.

Really to be option 3 is moronic.

____________________________________

No what you said is that this is not the year to spend money, and we should not spend until a max level player is available. So basically you don't want to spend money on any player who might be expensive unless it's a max player. So what would you do with Lowry next season then? Let him walk? How then do you replace his talent as well as what you've lost in DeRozan? You don't have high draft picks because you supposedly don't plan to be tanking. You're not going to pitch a superstar free agent to join a team that is losing its highest profile players and is not elite.

Totally, may game plan is to build an NBA team by not spending any money on anyone unless they are max players

Or you could read: You don't spend the max on a player you want to trade because it will hurt your franchise for 3-4 seasons

RE bold: JV and internal development

Klay Thompson's a good one. Young player like Jonas, he was productive prior to their championship season but his usage went up from around where Jonas' is in 2013-14 under Marc Jackson to where DeRozan's is in 2014-15 under Steve Kerr. He was incorporated more into the offense because of better coaching and a superior offensive system. That's the most recent example I can think of and it's a fairly recent one I'd say.

Reading comprehension. Klay does not fit the posed question

Curry was the higher usage player, and remained the higher usage player after Klays jump.

What I asked was:
Please give me an example where the highest usage player on a team took a step back in his prime to let a largely unproven player become the focal point of [the] offense

Totally sounds like Klay and the Warriors

What if DD tears his ACL in game 1 *knocks on wood*? Do you pay max for that?

I don't understand the point of these what if scenarios...

Because figuring out things before they happen is good so you don't get blind sided and make panic moves that hurt the franchise

[OldSkoolCool]

I understand now..this thread could have saved being beaten around the bush and just been titled "I don't want Derozan on the team next year"

For DeMarre Carroll money I do

And realistically DD is a bygone era guard that will never lead us to the promise land so why should we keep him? Although that is a question for the black whole that is the Everything DD thread

[JWash]

For DeMarre Carroll money I do

And realistically DD is a bygone era guard that will never lead us to the promise land so why should we keep him? Although that is a question for the black whole that is the Everything DD thread

Ok so don't hide your actual thoughts under some vague guise of this "not being the year to spend" money. It doesn't matter if it's 2016, 2026 or 1830, you don't want to spend what it takes to re-sign DeRozan. It has nothing to do with what your OP was about.

[JWash]

**Cough cough




____________________________________



Totally, may game plan is to build an NBA team by not spending any money on anyone unless they are max players

Or you could read: You don't spend the max on a player you want to trade because it will hurt your franchise for 3-4 seasons

RE bold: JV and internal development



Reading comprehension. Klay does not fit the posed question

Curry was the higher usage player, and remained the higher usage player after Klays jump.

What I asked was:
Please give me an example where the highest usage player on a team took a step back in his prime to let a largely unproven player become the focal point of [the] offense

Totally sounds like Klay and the Warriors



Because figuring out things before they happen is good so you don't get blind sided and make panic moves that hurt the franchise

The point was that the highest usage player doesn't necessarily need to take a significant step back. What you need to do is change the system to get other guys, particularly those who you think have star potential, more involved.

Draymond Green this year is more involved offensively for the Warriors than ever before. Which one of Curry or Klay is sitting on the backburner to make that happen? It's about putting everyone on the team in a position to succeed. That's what great coaching is, that's what a great system does. It doesn't mean marginalizing the guys you dislike (DeRozan) for the ones you like (JV). I'm a huge fan of both players and I think that a smart coach could easily get them to co-exist efficiently and effectively. The first tip-off there is that both of them excel in the pick and roll (DD as a ball-handler, JV as the roller). Why not change the team mentality/gameplan from "JV is setting a screen for DD/Lowry to free them up for a shot" to "JV is setting a screen for DD/Lowry and that's going to give us the option to either hit JV on the roll for a dunk or quick post play or have DD/Lowry attack".

[OldSkoolCool]

Ok so don't hide your actual thoughts under some vague guise of this "not being the year to spend" money. It doesn't matter if it's 2016, 2026 or 1830, you don't want to spend what it takes to re-sign DeRozan. It has nothing to do with what your OP was about.

That's what YOU want me to have said it's about

I don't want to sign a player with the assumption to trade the player because it handicaps the franchise for 3-4 years...

Read the OP:

Number 2 is an even worse decision. Why? Because the time-delay between the salary cap, and the player's salaries will be delayed by at least 2 more years. This doesn't mean that DD's contract won't be tradeable, actually that will be easy.

What will suck is the returning salary. We are going to have to take on at least two of those 3+ year contracts in the 8-14 mil range or the Mid Market range. Looking at that list of players doesn't inspire a lot of "yay let's turn a player into one of those great contracts!". We will come out of the deal with some bloated, long term contracts that will hinder resigning players and trades for the following two years after the deal. We could even end up with the whole process adding up to 3-4 years where we:

- dont change after 3 playoff disappointments (by keeping DD)
- can't change due to shitty contracts of mediocre players

Your really enjoy reading a post and tweaking it however you want to push your own agenda

[Mapko]

Wait, wouldn't option two provide the opportunity to trade DD for almost no returning salary the following summer when every team gets another 20M cap boost?

Exactly!
Not to mention, because there will be some 20 plus teams w over 800 mil to spend, there should be a number of teams way below cap. Sure they can give say J Hill 22 mil per, but why? Teams that strike out on top 8-10 FAs will likely be eager to take someone like DD for young talent/draft choices without much $$ going back.

[JWash]

That's what YOU want me to have said it's about

I don't want to sign a player with the assumption to trade the player because it handicaps the franchise for 3-4 years...

Read the OP:



Your really enjoy reading a post and tweaking it however you want to push your own agenda

I'm not suggesting re-signing DeRozan with the idea to trade him. When have I said that? I'm suggesting re-signing DeRozan to be part of the team moving forwards. All I said in regards to trading is that IF things don't work out, or if you want to move DD to create flexibility or do a rebuild later on, it will not be an issue on that contract unless his level of play seriously regresses. My suggestion has not been to effectively sign-and-look-to-trade Derozan. That is an absolute strawman.

[OldSkoolCool]

The point was that the highest usage player doesn't necessarily need to take a significant step back. What you need to do is change the system to get other guys, particularly those who you think have star potential, more involved.

Draymond Green this year is more involved offensively for the Warriors than ever before. Which one of Curry or Klay is sitting on the backburner to make that happen? It's about putting everyone on the team in a position to succeed. That's what great coaching is, that's what a great system does. It doesn't mean marginalizing the guys you dislike (DeRozan) for the ones you like (JV). I'm a huge fan of both players and I think that a smart coach could easily get them to co-exist efficiently and effectively. The first tip-off there is that both of them excel in the pick and roll (DD as a ball-handler, JV as the roller). Why not change the team mentality/gameplan from "JV is setting a screen for DD/Lowry to free them up for a shot" to "JV is setting a screen for DD/Lowry and that's going to give us the option to either hit JV on the roll for a dunk or quick post play or have DD/Lowry attack".

I don't think you realize how little JV is utilized, and how much DD is utilized...

I'm talking about the situation where JVs usage is > DDs

Do you see that ever happening if they are on the same team? Even if they run a ton of PnR's (that DD doesn't pass to JV to anyways)

I'm still waiting for you to come up with:

"Please give me an example where the highest usage player on a team took a step back in his prime to let a largely unproven player become the focal point of [the] offense"

I don't think you can, so to expect DD to do it solely because there is a new coach in town is unlikely.

[OldSkoolCool]

I'm not suggesting re-signing DeRozan with the idea to trade him. When have I said that? I'm suggesting re-signing DeRozan to be part of the team moving forwards. All I said in regards to trading is that IF things don't work out, or if you want to move DD to create flexibility or do a rebuild later on, it will not be an issue on that contract unless his level of play seriously regresses. My suggestion has not been to effectively sign-and-look-to-trade Derozan. That is an absolute strawman.

The OP was. You answered a question nobody asked, and weren't happy with the answer. Your problem

Reading comprehension

[JWash]

I don't think you realize how little JV is utilized, and how much DD is utilized...

I'm talking about the situation where JVs usage is > DDs

Do you see that ever happening if they are on the same team? Even if they run a ton of PnR's (that DD doesn't pass to JV to anyways)

I'm still waiting for you to come up with:

"Please give me an example where the highest usage player on a team took a step back in his prime to let a largely unproven player become the focal point of [the] offense"

I don't think you can, so to expect DD to do it solely because there is a new coach in town is unlikely.

You're just so fixed in this mentality that the way DeRozan is used and the way he plays cannot and will not be altered under a new coach or playing style.

It's up to the coach to tactically make Jonas a greater focal point in the offense. A smart coach would understand that division of labor between Lowry/DD/JV would be better tactically than over-relying on the backcourt guys while under-utilizing Valanciunas. From there that coach would emphasize in practices and within the team's offensive strategy, the idea of making JV a priority along with DD and Lowry.

If you're of the opinion that DeRozan would simply ignore the game-plan and not pass to Jonas even if the coach's entire offensive scheme was changed to make that a priority, then I really can't help you. If that's the case you basically think he's a cancer and absolutely not coach-able.

And I don't need to come up with an example of what you're requesting. I've explained why already. It's not that DeRozan needs to take a step back significantly, it's that we need a system that promotes integrating Valanciunas more into the offense.

[JWash]

If anything incorporating JV more is just going to make things easier for Lowry and DD. That's another guy now then that the defense has to key in on and really focus their schemes on, meaning less focus on the backcourt, meaning easier scoring opportunities. You don't need to sacrifice one guy for the other to do well. One guy having more opportunities can even allow the others to produce the same or more even if they're getting less opportunities because the chances they are getting are more efficient ones.

[Lark Benson]

I used to be on the blow it up side of the fence, but what I've come to accept is that I'm okay with the idea that this core might never be good enough. I can live with a few years of keeping the cupboard stocked with assets and waiting on a chance to add that final piece. It's not likely to yield a championship, but I'd rather they sustain a high level of play over multiple years while hoping to find a championship combination than tear it all down again. I know the likeliest path to a championship is probably through the draft; I just don't care any more.

[special1]

Why Not to Spend - Cheapskate Edition

"Why not to spend - Cheapskate edition" is a case study on how to stay in mediocrity.

All the best teams spend up to and over the cap. They also try to retain their star players. I haven't done any research on this, so feel free to rebut this.

The OP has an opinion and that has to be respected. However, I think the idea that his favourite option is to let a 26 year old likely two time all-star walk is laughable.

The OP forgets that Masai was able to get a first round pick and a second round pick for Bargnani..... I repeat Bargnani.

Masai traded Rudy Gay (who was never an all-star - who was owed 19 million with a player option - a larger percentage of the cap at the time, than Derozan would be) when Rudy was playing his worst basketball EVER and received good players who helped the team tie/set a franchise record in wins. I repeat he traded Rudy Gay when Rudy Gay was god awful.

This is all based on the premise that Demar (team leader in usage, minutes and points) will have very little or no impact on our post season success.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, but I think Demar will prove you wrong once again....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Axel]

To JWash and OSK - keep the insults/jabs out of it. You can make your points without them.

[Axel]

I know the likeliest path to a championship is probably through the draft; I just don't care any more.

That's a little bit sad.