The Warriors aren’t as good of example as you think they are. They paid Bogut 13 million when they won the title, David Lee made 15 million. They benefitted hugely from a way under market deal that Curry was on. He was making like 11 or 12 million a year. Draymond was never making max money. All this, plus the huge cap jump in 2016 allowed them to sign Durant.
They are a 1 in a million scenario where they had a MVP on a cheap contract and had a 20 million dollar cap increase hit right before they had to re-sign Curry.
Okay.
The Celtics have 2 players making over $15M this year (will be 3 next year when Tatums deal kicks in).
The Lakers have 3 (Schroeder is right at 15M).
Clippers have 3 (if you count Batums albatross deal)
Miami Heat have 2.
These are smart teams and organizations that are built to have sustained success.
The dumb organizations overpay for role players. Spending $20M on someone who is not a franchise player is a death sentence. These players in general are luxuries but not true difference makers over their potential cheaper replacements.
I don’t think we really disagree here. I think we just disagree on Turners value. I think 18 million a year is fine for him. He’s a fringe DPOY candidate who can space the floor on offense.
You would make him
One of your 3 highly paid players?
Wow- totally disagree on his value. He’s so replaceable to me.
Would depend on my other players. Indy has been a very good team with him as a top 3 paid guy. I’m curious what you’d be willing to pay this current version of Ayton?
Hard pass. Just like hard pass on giving Gobert max money. These defensive bigs in this era are so easily replaceable to me.
Rudy's situation seems like it's very unique. Combination of a small market team that hit unexpectedly on a late round pick, a guy who seems to like the team and is really appreciated by its fans, and a new owner coming in and wanting to make an "I'm willing to spend to win!" type of statement.
Doesn't mean that it's a good deal -- it's not -- but I can see how it happened.
