Everything Gary Trent Jr.

[golden]

I honestly could care less if he ever wins another all star, he's all star caliber and that's what matters. Do everything as in he contributes at a very high level on both ends of the floor. Many of the other top guards are one way players, including the guys who will beat him out for the all star game, cough Mitchell cough.

I'd be concerned about Fred's future trade value. Like it or not, the title of All-Star adds real trade value when a front office is considering bringing in a guy in that salary range. The GM has to sell the trade to his owner and the fan base. The other factor is age and health. Looking down the road, let's say we sign Fred for 4 more guaranteed years in the off-season (like you are hoping) and then we're looking to trade him for a dis-gruntled star (Shai).... 4 years from today. What's his market value in the future?

Well... Fred is injured every year and seems to be breaking down more often than before (thanks, Nick). He'll be 32-33... an age where PGs have traditionally started to steeply fall off the cliff (CP3 & Lowry are exceptions). His 1X All-Star will be long forgotten and even more young guards will be on the rise, and new kids entering the league on rookie scale contracts. As an overall trend... how interested will teams be in trading for a highly-paid undersized SG / weak creating PG at a time when the league is moving towards big ball-handlers?

[Primer]

I can't even be bothered to answer yet another post that entirely addresses what I didn't say. Go find Claw

You said "They're worth what they're worth, not a % of the cap" and Dan directly addressed that.

[G__Deane]

This is just fundamentally untrue. Players are absolutely worth a % of the cap. It's all about allocating available roster spend to the right talent. That happens via ratios with the cap, not some random dollar amount we decide a player is worth regardless of the financial health of the league.

I can't even be bothered to answer yet another post that entirely addresses what I didn't say. Go find Claw

[DanH]

I don't really understand the cap is X so give player Y $30M
Now the cap rises to X+ so give the same player $40M

They're worth what they're worth, not a % of the cap....and what about teams that only spend 80% of the cap?

This is just fundamentally untrue. Players are absolutely worth a % of the cap. It's all about allocating available roster spend to the right talent. That happens via ratios with the cap, not some random dollar amount we decide a player is worth regardless of the financial health of the league.

[TrueTorontoFan]

I don't really understand the cap is X so give player Y $30M
Now the cap rises to X+ so give the same player $40M

They're worth what they're worth, not a % of the cap....and what about teams that only spend 80% of the cap?

there is a minimum amount that teams have to spend if they spend under that amount the remaining amount gets distributed to the rest of the players to get your team to that minimum floor. teams rarely opt for that though

the problem for me isn't above or below the cap but whether you choose to be a tax team or not... but that isn't part of this discussion.

Max or super max contracts are worked out as an exact percentage of the cap.


The salaries that are not ... well they are not. A high level rotation piece back in the day would have got say $10 million to maybe max $17 those guys are now getting $25-35 million on average each year which is significantly more