Everything Derozan

[special1]

Honestly, I think this discussion is a shame. You clearly care about this stuff. You're not a mere agent provocateur. Or dumb.

But you can concede nothing on this point.

Do you really think, for example, that the chances of DeMar improving, for various reasons, are anything like those of Barngani being DPOY next year? If not, why equate the two?

(I KNOW, i KNOW - Technically I get it - Because I said you couldn't hold the views you were espousing "with certainty" ... but still - are the propositions really "equally viable"?).

As for DD getting "Max" money ... there seems to be a consensus that he'll get something fairly close. And not because some maverick, "whacked-out" GM will have more dollars than sense. Or because I say so. It's because, taking into account his age, accomplishments, ceiling, comparables and intangibles, he actually has a near-consensus high market value.

Can you concede that?

It doesn't matter, as much, whether anyone can agree he's "elite" or not, right? The question is closer to whether or not he's the best player we can realistically expect to get with the money we are going to have.

You're still entitled (of course) to say that high-profile commentators and industry insiders are wrong about his value ... but it seems to me a species of cupidity to push the point too far, given the uncertainty ... And not the "pigs might fly" uncertainty, but the "He might be better than you (Yes you!) think" uncertainty.

JWalsh and I are close to tears here ...

And it's got nothing to do with Snooch ...

Can you not see that. laddie??

Laddie?? lol

Oh man. *drake voice*

Told ya, this guy gets it!

Good post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Snooch]

I believe ordinary decorum, and the rules of the comment board, forbid the kind of reply which immediately springs to mind, after having read this.

And I think you know it.

But I think I can say that your mind is clearly closed as regards DD's talents, abilities, value and any room for improvement. And so I also think, with this post and others close by, you have functionally abandoned any real pretense of being prepared to participate in a good faith discussion of these matters.

Do you disagree? Am I wrong?

yes.

you are wrong as per usual

I post things that I can validate with stats and game tape etc, you post opinions as fact and when you fail to overcome any statements put forth you attempt to find a word, or a phrasing or something small within a post to try and argue over in an attempt to discredit everything posted.

I state that Demar is a poor shooter and a below average defender(which I can support) and those are qualitities which are, more often than not, those of a secondary options on great teams, and of the few that do not possess either of those, they are absolutely ELITE in another area. Demars best attribute is getting to the freethrow line, which is only taken advantage of through very HIGH usage. Those are not traits that are best suited for a secondary role.

And your comeback is I am either a hater, or just closed minded because I do not think that demar can change everything he has been known to be over his 6 year nba career and his college days and his highschool days because he did ok at it for team USA.

Disagreee?
Do You?
Care to attempt to back up anything you have claimed with any sort of numbers or anything at all? or would you rather prefer to argue about a typo or change the goalposts of the debate?

[Snooch]

Honestly, I think this discussion is a shame. You clearly care about this stuff. You're not a mere agent provocateur. Or dumb.

But you can concede nothing on this point.

Do you really think, for example, that the chances of DeMar improving, for various reasons, are anything like those of Barngani being DPOY next year? If not, why equate the two?

(I KNOW, i KNOW - Technically I get it - Because I said you couldn't hold the views you were espousing "with anything approaching certainty" [not "with certainty", by the way] ... but still - are the propositions really "equally viable"?).

As for DD getting "Max" money ... there seems to be a consensus that he'll get something fairly close. And not because some maverick, "whacked-out" GM will have more dollars than sense. Or because I say so. It's because, taking into account his age, accomplishments, ceiling, comparables and intangibles, he actually has a near-consensus high market value.

Can you concede that?

It doesn't matter, as much, whether anyone can agree he's "elite" or not, right? The question is closer to whether or not he's the best player we can realistically expect to get with the money we are going to have.

You're still entitled (of course) to say that high-profile commentators and industry insiders are wrong about his value ... but it seems to me a species of cupidity to push the point too far, given the uncertainty ... And not the "pigs might fly" uncertainty, but the "He might be better than you (Yes you!) think" uncertainty.

JWalsh and I are close to tears here ...

And it's got nothing to do with Snooch ...

Can you not see that. laddie??

i love how you and JWash keep changing the points of the arguements, now its back to him merely improving on defense and being worth a max contract or not.

Guess what he isnt, but under the cba he qualifies, and he wants it.

guess what, cant see him improving on defense cause in 6 years he hasnt

guess what, his great improvements through the years are merely incremental to begin with.

you come in here and skirt right to the point of hurling insults at certain posters who support their claims with statistics as evidence and add absolutely nothing of value to any claims you yourself make.

Its not unreasonable to believe blah blah blah right? show me why its unreasonable not to believe when all advanced statistics prove exactly the opposite.

[iblastoff]

Honestly, I think this discussion is a shame. You clearly care about this stuff. You're not a mere agent provocateur. Or dumb.

But you can concede nothing on this point.

Do you really think, for example, that the chances of DeMar improving, for various reasons, are anything like those of Barngani being DPOY next year? If not, why equate the two?

(I KNOW, i KNOW - Technically I get it - Because I said you couldn't hold the views you were espousing "with anything approaching certainty" [not "with certainty", by the way] ... but still - are the propositions really "equally viable"?).

As for DD getting "Max" money ... there seems to be a consensus that he'll get something fairly close. And not because some maverick, "whacked-out" GM will have more dollars than sense. Or because I say so. It's because, taking into account his age, accomplishments, ceiling, comparables and intangibles, he actually has a near-consensus high market value.

Can you concede that?

It doesn't matter, as much, whether anyone can agree he's "elite" or not, right? The question is closer to whether or not he's the best player we can realistically expect to get with the money we are going to have.

You're still entitled (of course) to say that high-profile commentators and industry insiders are wrong about his value ... but it seems to me a species of cupidity to push the point too far, given the uncertainty ... And not the "pigs might fly" uncertainty, but the "He might be better than you (Yes you!) think" uncertainty.

JWalsh and I are close to tears here ...

And it's got nothing to do with Snooch ...

Can you not see that. laddie??

Jesus Christ get it together man. When your argument is basically to try and denounce something by saying "well..duh. No one can predict the future" AND have this boards worst realgm level trolls being the only ones that agree with you, you should know something is wrong.

Sent from my Samsung S6 using Tapatalk

[Axel]

This is a strawman, period. Any average defender is going to get lit up by an elite player. Harrison Barnes is probably a bit above average and was getting absolutely annihilated by LeBron in the finals. Not being able to stop elite players doesn't mean you're a below average defender. Only above average to elite defenders can do that, and even they get torched at times. Hell Melo and LeBron dropped 60 on Gilchrist in back to back games a year ago.

The part you bolded in Dan's post didn't say anything about defending elite, DD is an adequate defender when guarding lesser perimeter opponents. This doesn't solely refer to nights vs LeBron but any team we play will have some variation of #1 option and #2 option. DD maintains his net neutral (at best) defensive level while facing off vs #2s.

If we gets better scoring option to be our #1, he better be able to defend opposing #1's cause DD isn't up to the task. If your secondary player doesn't make games easier for your #1 (and DD's lack of 3P shooting and defence wouldn't contribute in this area), then why would you pay them near #1 money to be a non-complimentary #2?

[JWash]

The part you bolded in Dan's post didn't say anything about defending elite, DD is an adequate defender when guarding lesser perimeter opponents. This doesn't solely refer to nights vs LeBron but any team we play will have some variation of #1 option and #2 option. DD maintains his net neutral (at best) defensive level while facing off vs #2s.

If we gets better scoring option to be our #1, he better be able to defend opposing #1's cause DD isn't up to the task. If your secondary player doesn't make games easier for your #1 (and DD's lack of 3P shooting and defence wouldn't contribute in this area), then why would you pay them near #1 money to be a non-complimentary #2?

DeRozan would be able to do that, he just wouldn't lock them down. However almost no players in the NBA can lock down #1 options.

[DanH]

DeRozan would be able to do that, he just wouldn't lock them down. However almost no players in the NBA can lock down #1 options.

I'm not arguing that he would have to lock them down - I'm arguing that his defensive numbers, which right now are average at best, would instead be very poor if he were in that role rather than consistently defending the lesser threat. If he were able to post average defensive numbers in that role, then he would be (well, not really but let's go with it) a decent second option. He's never proven to be able to do so, and his inability to post above average defensive numbers while defending lesser players is very concerning in that regard.

[DanH]

Honestly, I think this discussion is a shame. You clearly care about this stuff. You're not a mere agent provocateur. Or dumb.

But you can concede nothing on this point.

Do you really think, for example, that the chances of DeMar improving, for various reasons, are anything like those of Barngani being DPOY next year? If not, why equate the two?

(I KNOW, i KNOW - Technically I get it - Because I said you couldn't hold the views you were espousing "with anything approaching certainty" [not "with certainty", by the way] ... but still - are the propositions really "equally viable"?).

As for DD getting "Max" money ... there seems to be a consensus that he'll get something fairly close. And not because some maverick, "whacked-out" GM will have more dollars than sense. Or because I say so. It's because, taking into account his age, accomplishments, ceiling, comparables and intangibles, he actually has a near-consensus high market value.

Can you concede that?

It doesn't matter, as much, whether anyone can agree he's "elite" or not, right? The question is closer to whether or not he's the best player we can realistically expect to get with the money we are going to have.

You're still entitled (of course) to say that high-profile commentators and industry insiders are wrong about his value ... but it seems to me a species of cupidity to push the point too far, given the uncertainty ... And not the "pigs might fly" uncertainty, but the "He might be better than you (Yes you!) think" uncertainty.

JWalsh and I are close to tears here ...

And it's got nothing to do with Snooch ...

Can you not see that. laddie??

Im not equating the two. I'm pointing out the strawman-ishness of asking for certainty (or near-certainty, which seems an equally nebulous term) in a debate about the future. Put your opponent in the role of proving a certainty, while you don't have to, and you are bound to come out on top every time. It's a dishonest debate tactic, that's all.

As for market value. Yes, that will be his market value. But market value is a strange thing - it often fails completely to align with the value a player has. Hedo Turkoglu wasn't worth his 10M, yet had multiple teams offering it. Carlos Boozer wasn't worth the max, and yet, since that summer of 2010 was flooded with money, got every penny of it. Market value right?

In any year except the coming two cap booms, I would never predict that DeRozan gets maximum money. I also expected a Chandler Parsons type deal, in the range of 15M in the current cap, or just under 20M per year annual average in the 89M cap. I would have thought it was an overpay, as DeRozan was always a player who I thought would have a higher market value and actual value (due to the traditional overpayment for scorers regardless of efficiency), but it would have been his league-determined market value.

Unfortunately, DeRozan is a free agent during the cap boom. There will be a couple dozen teams with max cap room. There will be... Two max level free agents. At least one will return to where he already plays. The rest of the players will get overpaid by those teams that strike out - not because their value is high, but because that is just what markets do when supply dries up and demand is still there. Prices skyrocket.

So, yes. Market value. For one summer. But when reality sets in and the cap normalizes and teams return to spending on players roughly (usually... Well, sometimes) in line with their actual NBA value, most of the guys signed in 2016 and a few in 2017 (2017 has a lot more star level free agents) will be seen as overpaid. In my opinion DD will be one of the worst, as I already considered him a likely candidate for overpayment based on the traditional valuation of his skillset versus the value it actually has in the NBA.

I'm trying really hard to respond in a mature manner, here. I'd appreciate it if you didn't call me Laddie.

[JWash]

Im not equating the two. I'm pointing out the strawman-ishness of asking for certainty (or near-certainty, which seems an equally nebulous term) in a debate about the future. Put your opponent in the role of proving a certainty, while you don't have to, and you are bound to come out on top every time. It's a dishonest debate tactic, that's all.

As for market value. Yes, that will be his market value. But market value is a strange thing - it often fails completely to align with the value a player has. Hedo Turkoglu wasn't worth his 10M, yet had multiple teams offering it. Carlos Boozer wasn't worth the max, and yet, since that summer of 2010 was flooded with money, got every penny of it. Market value right?

While Boozer wasn't really worth the full max, it's not like he handicapped the Bulls and they were basically a title contender for the entirety of his time there until Rose got injured. Not exactly the same situation as the Raptors because they had a superstar (Rose) on a rookie deal up until 2012, but it does show that paying a non-max player slightly more than they're actually worth doesn't necessarily kill you if they're productive. I mean Golden State was paying David Lee $15 million last year to do nothing (which would be the equivalent of paying 20M to your 9th man under the new $89M cap.

In any year except the coming two cap booms, I would never predict that DeRozan gets maximum money. I also expected a Chandler Parsons type deal, in the range of 15M in the current cap, or just under 20M per year annual average in the 89M cap. I would have thought it was an overpay, as DeRozan was always a player who I thought would have a higher market value and actual value (due to the traditional overpayment for scorers regardless of efficiency), but it would have been his league-determined market value.

But didn't Parsons get a max contract? Just not max term? I believe he's making the same money the next two years as Hayward (who I'm 99% sure received a max offer-sheet from the Hornets, which was matched by Utah), he just has a shorter deal with a PO in the last year, no?

I realize DeRozan's max is higher because he'll be a 7 year vet, qualifying him for the mid-max as opposed to the lower end max. But let's say we do have to pay that to keep DeRozan next offseason. I think he'd only be drastically overpaid for the first year. After that, for the next 3-4 years of his contract the cap would be an average of like 106M or so. (Assuming it goes 108, 100 then resumes normal increases, so maybe 108, 100, 105, 110).

So if he got the full max (~28M per year on average) his contract would average out to be approximately 26% of the cap for the duration of the deal, making it equivalent to about $17M the offseason Parsons/Hayward signed under a 63M cap. Those two received a little less than 15M in that first year. Considering DeRozan is just as good if not better than both of them I'm not seeing a monumental "we need to trade DD before this happens" type of issue here.

Unfortunately, DeRozan is a free agent during the cap boom. There will be a couple dozen teams with max cap room. There will be... Two max level free agents. At least one will return to where he already plays. The rest of the players will get overpaid by those teams that strike out - not because their value is high, but because that is just what markets do when supply dries up and demand is still there. Prices skyrocket.

I'm assuming you're talking about Dwight and KD? Or maybe Horford and KD idk, but how have you already determined that at least one will return back to his original team? The rest of the players, especially the next tier of guys like Beal, DeRozan, etc will probably get paid more than they should... but the same happened under the current cap and last year's cap. Would you argue that guys like Hayward/Parsons contracts handicap their teams (assuming the cap were increasing steadily and not jumping to 89M and then 108M?).

[Snooch]

The part you bolded in Dan's post didn't say anything about defending elite, DD is an adequate defender when guarding lesser perimeter opponents. This doesn't solely refer to nights vs LeBron but any team we play will have some variation of #1 option and #2 option. DD maintains his net neutral (at best) defensive level while facing off vs #2s.

If we gets better scoring option to be our #1, he better be able to defend opposing #1's cause DD isn't up to the task. If your secondary player doesn't make games easier for your #1 (and DD's lack of 3P shooting and defence wouldn't contribute in this area), then why would you pay them near #1 money to be a non-complimentary #2?

Find it funny that I have posted pretty much this more than once, but Im just a hater.

[DanH]

LBJ and KD. LBJ will return to where he plays. KD might.

RFA maxes can be problematic indeed. And you have stumbled on the entire point here. Yes, paying a guy like DeMar big money when he isn't worth it will be fine - if we have a superstar on a rookie scale deal. We don't. So...

Your projections are not in line with the NBA's. They project 89, 108, 100, 102, 107. Over the length of a 5 year deal it averages to 101M. While DeMar's max deal would go roughly 25M, 27M, 29M, 31M, 33M. So averaging about 29% of the cap. That's equivalent to a 20M per year deal under the current cap.

[Snooch]

While Boozer wasn't really worth the full max, it's not like he handicapped the Bulls and they were basically a title contender for the entirety of his time there until Rose got injured. Not exactly the same situation as the Raptors because they had a superstar (Rose) on a rookie deal up until 2012, but it does show that paying a non-max player slightly more than they're actually worth doesn't necessarily kill you if they're productive. I mean Golden State was paying David Lee $15 million last year to do nothing (which would be the equivalent of paying 20M to your 9th man under the new $89M cap.



But didn't Parsons get a max contract? Just not max term? I believe he's making the same money the next two years as Hayward (who I'm 99% sure received a max offer-sheet from the Hornets, which was matched by Utah), he just has a shorter deal with a PO in the last year, no?

I realize DeRozan's max is higher because he'll be a 7 year vet, qualifying him for the mid-max as opposed to the lower end max. But let's say we do have to pay that to keep DeRozan next offseason. I think he'd only be drastically overpaid for the first year. After that, for the next 3-4 years of his contract the cap would be an average of like 106M or so. (Assuming it goes 108, 100 then resumes normal increases, so maybe 108, 100, 105, 110).

So if he got the full max (~28M per year on average) his contract would average out to be approximately 26% of the cap for the duration of the deal, making it equivalent to about $17M the offseason Parsons/Hayward signed under a 63M cap. Those two received a little less than 15M in that first year. Considering DeRozan is just as good if not better than both of them I'm not seeing a monumental "we need to trade DD before this happens" type of issue here.



I'm assuming you're talking about Dwight and KD? Or maybe Horford and KD idk, but how have you already determined that at least one will return back to his original team? The rest of the players, especially the next tier of guys like Beal, DeRozan, etc will probably get paid more than they should... but the same happened under the current cap and last year's cap. Would you argue that guys like Hayward/Parsons contracts handicap their teams (assuming the cap were increasing steadily and not jumping to 89M and then 108M?).

trying to justify an amount to pay a player by saying that the cap will increase is illogical.

Would you pay $20 for a happy meal cause you know that tomorrow is payday and you will have more money again?

And if memory serves me correctly Boozer was attempted to be traded many times by Chicago, and then there was the amnesty that they were going to use, there were even talks of trading him for Bargnani...BARGNANI! Chicago may have liked that contract early, but they absolutely hated it later.

[Axel]

DeRozan would be able to do that, he just wouldn't lock them down. However almost no players in the NBA can lock down #1 options.

I don't think there is any evidence to support that DD would be able to hold his own vs #1s.

Forgot all the lock down nonsense, DD isn't a lockdown defender and shouldn't be expected to be.

Can DD prevent dribble drives and not get lit up? That is what an average defender should bring, not a liability or an asset on defence.

DD's defensive "strengths" are largely based on knowing the rotations of Casey's system. He doesn't stop dribble drives or pressure passing lanes or contest shots in a positive manner.

Right now, DD isn't a liability or an asset on defence. This is adequate for a guy who is primarily a scorer. But if we add a true #1 scorer, DD isn't a valuable on offence (less relied upon and doesn't have good complimentary skills on offence) and should therefore be taking on a larger defensive responsibility to be worth a large contract.

[JWash]

LBJ and KD. LBJ will return to where he plays. KD might.

RFA maxes can be problematic indeed. And you have stumbled on the entire point here. Yes, paying a guy like DeMar big money when he isn't worth it will be fine - if we have a superstar on a rookie scale deal. We don't. So...

Your projections are not in line with the NBA's. They project 89, 108, 100, 102, 107. Over the length of a 5 year deal it averages to 101M. While DeMar's max deal would go roughly 25M, 27M, 29M, 31M, 33M. So averaging about 29% of the cap. That's equivalent to a 20M per year deal under the current cap.

Oh right I actually forgot that LBJ was a free agent cause I considered him a certainty to return, my bad on that. Take a like. Hadn't seen the NBA's projections for those last two years you listed there, thanks for the information, I just assuming about 5-7M jumps like we've seen the last couple of years (I think from 58 to 63 and then to 70 now).

So worst case scenario DeRozan is getting a deal that looks like 19M, 18M, 20M, 21M, 21M under the current cap? While that's definitely not ideal, it's manageable and not something that screams that we need to trade him for a mid-late 1st imo. And this is assuming that DD gets the full max, which I don't think will happen anyway.

People are making this out to be doomsday when it really isn't imo.

[JWash]

I don't think there is any evidence to support that DD would be able to hold his own vs #1s.

Forgot all the lock down nonsense, DD isn't a lockdown defender and shouldn't be expected to be.

Can DD prevent dribble drives and not get lit up? That is what an average defender should bring, not a liability or an asset on defence.

DD's defensive "strengths" are largely based on knowing the rotations of Casey's system. He doesn't stop dribble drives or pressure passing lanes or contest shots in a positive manner.

Right now, DD isn't a liability or an asset on defence. This is adequate for a guy who is primarily a scorer. But if we add a true #1 scorer, DD isn't a valuable on offence (less relied upon and doesn't have good complimentary skills on offence) and should therefore be taking on a larger defensive responsibility to be worth a large contract.

Yes he can. And DeRozan's value on offense would increase with a true #1 scorer as the opportunities he would get would be against less defensive attention, while also allowing him to play off-ball a little bit more and get more looks from the corners.