Larry Coon on new CBA, Howard and Smith

[Buzzard]

A fair way to look at it given your top 3 player on the roster criteria is to say,

There are 30 NBA teams

there are 3 top 3 players per team.

There are 90 top 3 players in the league.

Question, is Josh a top 90 player in the league?

According to PER, Josh was 64th in the league this year. Last year he was 29th. The year before he was 35th.

Add in the fact that he is an above average defender and you have a player who is at least top 50 in the league.

Now consider a team like the Charlotte Bobcats. They will be 19 million under the cap this year and 36 million under next year. However, they are not a top free agent destination center. They desperately need a player like Josh to fuel fan excitement and hope.

When determining what a player will get in free agency, you don't ask what is he worth to your team. You ask "what is he worth to every team". The only question remaining revolves around whether Josh wants to win or get paid.

Its not every team. Its first and foremost your team as the GM and secondly, the free agent market is not every team. A team like the Bobcats may overpay. That is not so much a indication of how good Josh is; but more of a indication of how bad and desperate the Bobcats are to at least return to middle of the pack mediocrity.

If Josh is your 1st or 2nd best option, he might get that 14 a season and your team will be us or worse. If Josh goes to a contender, in all likelihood they will not pay him more than their stars. And your thesis is ruling out the longterm effects of Josh's contract compared to the cap/luxury line.

The big spenders are going to tone it down and not be above five million over the luxury line for three seasons in a row; and teams in small markets are going to start being even more frugal and stay below that five million dollar line. This is all just my opinion, but I think a lot of the new tax went into Coon's thinking. I disagree somewhat with him and think Josh may get upwards of 12 million.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Buzzard

[Nicholasp27]

Josh will get more than that but he is NOT the third best FA

[KB21]

I think he massively contradicted himself. He starts off the interview by saying that there are more teams with cap space than they are top free agents so I don't see how arguably the 3rd best free agent after Dwight and Paul only walks away with a deal paying him 40 million over 4 years considering the number of available suitors. Josh is more likely to take that total amount over a 3 year deal than a 4. He seems to have a premise in his mind about how the new CBA will depress player salaries but then admits that he hasn't actually seen that trend occur yet.

This is the first year of the heavier penalty with the luxury tax. What Larry Coon is doing is predicting how things will work out based on the premise that teams are not going to want to pay almost three times as much in luxury tax as what they would have previously paid under the old deal PLUS what they have to pay in revenue sharing.

Coon isn't contradicting himself. Plus, with more and more front offices making use of advanced analytical methods, they will avoid overpaying for players.

[MaceCase]

This is the first year of the heavier penalty with the luxury tax. What Larry Coon is doing is predicting how things will work out based on the premise that teams are not going to want to pay almost three times as much in luxury tax as what they would have previously paid under the old deal PLUS what they have to pay in revenue sharing.

Coon isn't contradicting himself. Plus, with more and more front offices making use of advanced analytical methods, they will avoid overpaying for players.

No, it is a contradiction because teams with cap space are miles away from the luxury tax thus making it a non-factor in the discussion. No one or even pair of deals gets a team into the tax but rather an accumulation of them over time. Considering that the cap and tax level will also continue to rise and the new rates will mostly only affect teams that spend deep into the tax, I do not agree with your assesment on the comments at all especially when you added your own interpretation of teams using analytics when that had nothing to do with what Coon said.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Its not every team. Its first and foremost your team as the GM and secondly, the free agent market is not every team. A team like the Bobcats may overpay. That is not so much a indication of how good Josh is; but more of a indication of how bad and desperate the Bobcats are to at least return to middle of the pack mediocrity.

If Josh is your 1st or 2nd best option, he might get that 14 a season and your team will be us or worse. If Josh goes to a contender, in all likelihood they will not pay him more than their stars. And your thesis is ruling out the longterm effects of Josh's contract compared to the cap/luxury line.

The big spenders are going to tone it down and not be above five million over the luxury line for three seasons in a row; and teams in small markets are going to start being even more frugal and stay below that five million dollar line. This is all just my opinion, but I think a lot of the new tax went into Coon's thinking. I disagree somewhat with him and think Josh may get upwards of 12 million.

I think that's Camp's point though.

A team like Charlotte has absolutely nothing going for them, so they will do things out of desperation. Giving Josh a big money deal, and marketing him as the face of the franchise, along with their young talent, wouldn't be the worst thing they could do. And Charlotte would still be well under the Luxury Tax line, if not even still be below the salary cap.

Contrary to popular belief around here, being a mediocre playoff team isn't the worst thing in the world in the NBA. Being completely irrelevant in the NBA, while putting out a losing product year after year, is the worst thing. We were there in 2004. What did we do? Get completely desperate in 2005, and basically hijacked Joe Johnson from Phoenix.

Heck, even Houston did it last year, with their poison pill contracts to Asik and Jeremy Lin. They had to do "something" to get their fans talking and believing in the future. Then they made the BIG move by getting Harden.

I'd be shocked . . SHOCKED . . if Josh didn't at least get a 4 yr - 52 million deal from somebody. He has major flaws to his game, but he's still a good player.

For the Hawks though, Josh shouldn't be bought back, even if we could secure him for 4yrs - $1. And the reason for that is if he's brought back, he ( and his people ) are always going to believe that he's the star of the team ( even if Horford is clearly the better player these days ). He will not scale back his game, and become a playmaking F. He'll always take that broke jumpshot.

At least if he was the star of a team of his own, he could justify taking those shots.

[Buzzard]

No, it is a contradiction because teams with cap space are miles away from the luxury tax thus making it a non-factor in the discussion. No one or even pair of deals gets a team into the tax but rather an accumulation of them over time. Considering that the cap and tax level will also continue to rise and the new rates will mostly only affect teams that spend deep into the tax, I do not agree with your assesment on the comments at all especially when you added your own interpretation of teams using analytics when that had nothing to do with what Coon said.

I agree somewhat but also think it is a factor if your plan is to have a contender Mace. You will have to have at least two players who eventually get max deals and if you look at OKC, Spurs, GSW, LAC, Miami. Chicago, NY, and Indy. The only team without 2 or more players who could or are getting max type deals is Indy ( Granger and George are iffy max deal players IMO ).

Its the longterm GM's have to look at and the fear that two to four years from now they will be scrambling to stay under the luxury tax that will play a part. Signing a bunch of non or borderline all stars like Josh, Pek, Tyreke, and Jefferson to max or near max contracts is a bigger gamble now.

[Buzzard]

I think that's Camp's point though.

A team like Charlotte has absolutely nothing going for them, so they will do things out of desperation. Giving Josh a big money deal, and marketing him as the face of the franchise, along with their young talent, wouldn't be the worst thing they could do. And Charlotte would still be well under the Luxury Tax line, if not even still be below the salary cap.

Contrary to popular belief around here, being a mediocre playoff team isn't the worst thing in the world in the NBA. Being completely irrelevant in the NBA, while putting out a losing product year after year, is the worst thing. We were there in 2004. What did we do? Get completely desperate in 2005, and basically hijacked Joe Johnson from Phoenix.

Heck, even Houston did it last year, with their poison pill contracts to Asik and Jeremy Lin. They had to do "something" to get their fans talking and believing in the future. Then they made the BIG move by getting Harden.

I'd be shocked . . SHOCKED . . if Josh didn't at least get a 4 yr - 52 million deal from somebody. He has major flaws to his game, but he's still a good player.

For the Hawks though, Josh shouldn't be bought back, even if we could secure him for 4yrs - $1. And the reason for that is if he's brought back, he ( and his people ) are always going to believe that he's the star of the team ( even if Horford is clearly the better player these days ). He will not scale back his game, and become a playmaking F. He'll always take that broke jumpshot.

At least if he was the star of a team of his own, he could justify taking those shots.

Asik's deal is not a poison pill. 8.3 million cap hit for a quality starting center is about as good a bargain as you can get without him being on a rookie contract. The below is my thinking on players like Josh. Not saying he may not get 14 million but I think it puts his team in a bad spot if they do it.

Its the longterm GM's have to look at and the fear that two to four years from now they will be scrambling to stay under the luxury tax that will play a part. Signing a bunch of non or borderline all stars like Josh, Pek, Tyreke, and Jefferson to max or near max contracts is a bigger gamble now.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Buzzard

[TheNorthCydeRises]

I agree somewhat but also think it is a factor if your plan is to have a contender Mace. You will have to have at least two players who eventually get max deals and if you look at OKC, Spurs, GSW, LAC, Miami. Chicago, NY, and Indy. The only team without 2 or more players who could or are getting max type deals is Indy ( Granger and George are iffy max deal players IMO ).

Its the longterm GM's have to look at and the fear that two to four years from now they will be scrambling to stay under the luxury tax that will play a part. Signing a bunch of non or borderline all stars like Josh, Pek, Tyreke, and Jefferson to max or near max contracts is a bigger gamble now.

Let me throw a scenario at you Buzz

You're the GM of the CLEVELAND CAVALIERS

- You have the #1 and #19 pick in this year's draft. NBAdraft.net has them projected to take Ben McLemore at #1 and Shabazz Muhammad at #19

- You have 8 players under contract . .

Irving ( PG ) - already an all-star caliber PG

Varejao ( C ) - who was leading the league in rebounding when he got hurt

Thompson ( PF ) - a decent young PF that plays 10 feet and in

Waters ( G ) - an athletic young G who struggled with his shot somewhat

Gee ( G ) - defensive minded wing that is limited offensively

Zellar ( C ) - a young center that struggled with his shot, mainly because he shot too many jumpers

Speights ( F/C ) - a jumpshooting big man that plays little defense

- If you renounce all of your free agents and don't give qualifying offers to Casspi and Ellington, you're going to be around 20 million under the salary cap . . once the cap holds of the 1st round picks are added to the roster.

So after the draft, and going into free agency, this is potentially your lineup

PG: Irving

G: McLemore - Waiters

F: Muhammad - Gee

PF: ???? - Thompson

C: Varejao - Speights - Zellar

You have now surrounded Kyrie with two of the better 3 point shooters in college basketball in McLemore and Muhammad. And while Thompson was decent last year, you have the potential to significantly upgrade the PF spot by adding Josh Smith, Al Jefferson, or Paul Millsap to your team as a major free agent signing.

Do you do it?

If so, at what price? ( remember, you're going to be somewhere around 20 million under the cap )

If not . . . why not?

[MaceCase]

I agree somewhat but also think it is a factor if your plan is to have a contender Mace. You will have to have at least two players who eventually get max deals and if you look at OKC, Spurs, GSW, LAC, Miami. Chicago, NY, and Indy. The only team without 2 or more players who could or are getting max type deals is Indy ( Granger and George are iffy max deal players IMO ). Its the longterm GM's have to look at and the fear that two to four years from now they will be scrambling to stay under the luxury tax that will play a part. Signing a bunch of non or borderline all stars like Josh, Pek, Tyreke, and Jefferson to max or near max contracts is a bigger gamble now.

And just like KB you are interjecting your own interpretations rather than going by what Coon ACTUALLY said.Keep in mind that in the very same interview, Coon mentioned the New York Knicks (a luxury tax team) would not hesitate to pay JR Smith of all people 5.5 million and that if it weren't for them being limited by Early Bird rules they would offer him up to his market value of 7 million....without any mention of luxury tax issues.So do you see why I said he's contradicting himself and why I think you guys are trying to invent what he meant? Teams won't hesitate paying JR 7 mil even with tax implications but would value Josh at 7-10 without? Edited June 2, 2013 by MaceCase

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Asik's deal is not a poison pill. 8.3 million cap hit for a quality starting center is about as good a bargain as you can get without him being on a rookie contract. The below is my thinking on players like Josh. Not saying he may not get 14 million but I think it puts his team in a bad spot if they do it.

Its the longterm GM's have to look at and the fear that two to four years from now they will be scrambling to stay under the luxury tax that will play a part. Signing a bunch of non or borderline all stars like Josh, Pek, Tyreke, and Jefferson to max or near max contracts is a bigger gamble now.

Lin and Asik got basically the same types of deals, a 3 yr - 25 million deal. The Rockets overpaid for both of them, especially Lin. But the reason why they were able to get both of them, is because both had poison pill provisions in them that would've had the Knicks and Bulls pay almost 15 million in Year 3, had they matched the Rockets' offer for both of them.

Once the Knicks and Bulls refused to match, their salaries reverted back to a regular 3 - 25 type deal at 8.375 million a year.

Even in the Rockets situation, if they missed out on Howard, you wouldn't sign Josh to a 4 yr - 48 million deal if you were the Rockets GM? They're a team that could desperately use an active defensive player like Josh at the PF. If they whiff on Howard, I think they're definitely going after Josh BIG TIME.

Teams in this new CBA era are going to continue to pay star players. It's the fringe and mediocre players that will see their value cut. It's guys like Zaza that may be forced to sign 1 and 2 year deals from here on out, instead of seeing teams lock them up for 3 - 4 years. I think that's going to be the real way that teams keep their flexibility . . . by not overpaying for marginal or bench caliber talent.

[Randy]

I also thought it was a contradiction, but if you really don't think much of Josh, its not. He may really think Josh sucks -and he never really talked about how much he thinks of Josh. With the luxury tax being so big, seems to me that teams will really avoid long term deals that threaten to put them in the tax a few years down the road.

The thing he said that worries me is that there aren't that many good FA's out there - you could end up with the Hawks not really getting anyone of much value. Or maybe they go after RFA's using the Houston type approach.

At this point, I'd be more surprised to see Josh with a Hawk on his chest than with a Deer on his chest.

[NBASupes]

Josh might get a nice deal from Houston if they miss out on Dwight and CP3.

[DJlaysitup]

Coon must have a Ph.D. in self-importance. He comes in with a pre-conceived notion of how he thinks things will work out...then he "analyzes the data" ...which proves him wrong...then he comes to the conclusion that his pre-conceived notion is correct.

Edited June 2, 2013 by DJlaysitup

[Admin]

Coon must have a Ph.D. in self-importance. He comes in with a pre-conceived notion of how he thinks things will work out...then he "analyzes the data" ...which proves him wrong...then he comes to the conclusion that his pre-conceived notion is correct.

He's no different than any other "capologist" around here ya know. :taunt:

[AHF]

I think you are right about that. Boy the Nets are really freaking stupid for giving him that much money.

I am pretty sure they signed him with the idea that they could trade his $12M expiring salary for a high priced talent someone else wanted to unload. I don't think they signed him for that based on merit.

[Admin]

I am pretty sure they signed him with the idea that they could trade his $12M expiring salary for a high priced talent someone else wanted to unload. I don't think they signed him for that based on merit.

Well that will be a great idea, instead of removing $12 million from your bloated salary you add that much or more over a longer time period. The Nets are going to learn that you can't just spend your way to a title now under the new CBA. At least not with this group of guys that they're building their team with.

[Buzzard]

I did not agree with Coons 7 to 10 for Josh. I think 10 to 12 starting is what he will get. What I do think is Coon drew his estimates in part due to the new CBA and the tougher/higher tax penalties.

Using the Knicks as a example is not that convincing. When the dust settles, a good base line would be who is in the luxury vs how many were in it under the old CBA. And a base average to see if its lower or higher on a team average.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Buzzard

[Buzzard]

Let me throw a scenario at you Buzz

You're the GM of the CLEVELAND CAVALIERS

- You have the #1 and #19 pick in this year's draft. NBAdraft.net has them projected to take Ben McLemore at #1 and Shabazz Muhammad at #19

- You have 8 players under contract . .

Irving ( PG ) - already an all-star caliber PG

Varejao ( C ) - who was leading the league in rebounding when he got hurt

Thompson ( PF ) - a decent young PF that plays 10 feet and in

Waters ( G ) - an athletic young G who struggled with his shot somewhat

Gee ( G ) - defensive minded wing that is limited offensively

Zellar ( C ) - a young center that struggled with his shot, mainly because he shot too many jumpers

Speights ( F/C ) - a jumpshooting big man that plays little defense

- If you renounce all of your free agents and don't give qualifying offers to Casspi and Ellington, you're going to be around 20 million under the salary cap . . once the cap holds of the 1st round picks are added to the roster.

So after the draft, and going into free agency, this is potentially your lineup

PG: Irving

G: McLemore - Waiters

F: Muhammad - Gee

PF: ???? - Thompson

C: Varejao - Speights - Zellar

You have now surrounded Kyrie with two of the better 3 point shooters in college basketball in McLemore and Muhammad. And while Thompson was decent last year, you have the potential to significantly upgrade the PF spot by adding Josh Smith, Al Jefferson, or Paul Millsap to your team as a major free agent signing.

Do you do it?

If so, at what price? ( remember, you're going to be somewhere around 20 million under the cap )

If not . . . why not?

Personally I would bide my time one more draft and see how my SF's work out. If one became available in a trade, I would have the cap free and clear to eat the whole contract.

Maybe the Cavs see Josh as a SF; but who ever gets him, they will not have to pay Josh a max. Jefferson IMO is the only player on your list of forwards that will still have a lot of value on a near max contract.