Player A is 6'7", 36-year-old Paul Millsap over the last two seasons (unsigned).
Player B is 6'5", 36-year-old P.J. Tucker over the last two seasons (two years, $15 million from the Heat).
Like many of us here believe, Paul Millsap could wind up being a meaningful addition to this team, or any other for that matter. For those of you that are P.J. Tucker fans, you probably feel like his impact made a difference for the NBA championship-winning Milwaukee Bucks. I feel similarly about Millsap and what he brings even at this stage of his career. It's surprising that he's even still available at this point.
Cam, why can't I have my own opinion on this? As you know the Wolves are a long ways from being the Milwaukee Bucks. Did Tucker make a lot of sense for Milwaukee? Of course he did. As a Bucks fan I am very aware of his impact on the team. But did you notice he was the one guy they didn't work to bring back this summer? I don't know, comparing the Bucks and Wolves situations is a stretch in my opinion.
You can and do have your opinion. I simply disagree with you wholeheartedly. Also, it's not a comparison of the Bucks and the Wolves. That post is simply comparing two aging veteran players and the impact they've had for their teams the last couple seasons. Millsap comes out as a clearly more productive player over those years in Andy Bailey's tweets. I found that interesting, especially considering one was considered an impact free agent and the other is unsigned.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:Let's remember what we were originally discussing. Should we go over the tax line to sign Milsap. As a fan I say yes. As an owner I would say no. And I've made those reasons abundantly clear.
As an owner, it's not my job to tell the GM what moves to make to either win, or set ourselves up for a quick rebuild. But I can tell him I don't want to be at the tax line if we're only going to win 34 games. If that's the case, there is no reason to have an inflated payroll. There are currently 24 teams with lower cap hits than we have, and we haven't filled out our roster yet. Our situation should be a lot more like the Knicks, and a lot less like the Clippers who win a lot more.
My original post that prompted your prattle was about potentially surpassing the luxury tax threshold now and then diving below it by the end of the regular season. In doing so the Wolves would add a meaningful player now and incur no luxury tax payment later. I even mentioned a couple simple ways in which that could be possible.
This whole time you've repeatedly talked about telling your GM not to be at the luxury threshold, but yet you won't explain how that would be done considering the situation Gersson Rosas inherited. You're saying the same things without providing your avenue of how that could have been accomplished. We're just going around in circles at this point with no real understanding being made.
To me it's not important what avenue is taken. As a GM there are many ways to do it. Again it's not my job as a fan to come up with a way to manage the team resources. I don't understand why you continue to make a big deal out of this. As an owner, I wouldn't want Rosas to sign Milsap putting us up against the tax line. Can't we just leave it at that? Why should I come up with some sequence of moves that would provide a pathway to reducing payroll? Do you not believe it's possible? Any plan that I come up with, you would immediately argue why it's not a good plan. The ROI on a Milsap signing isn't worth it in my opinion. No need to beat this thing anymore than it already has.
I've already laid out various possibilities of how Gersson Rosas could have gone about reducing payroll. All of them included reducing assets or lowering the talent level that they have now. If you're going to bring up a problem, such as Minnesota's payroll being next to the luxury tax threshold, then I'd like to know your solution, or at least something -- anything -- specific that you would have done differently. If not, then it's an unproductive conversation and we're wasting our time here. What I believe you're suggesting of an NBA owner just isn't a realistic way to behave given the situation they hired Rosas into. That's the end of it. We can move on.
I'm with Cool on this. If I were the owner, I'd establish certain operational parameters for my head of basketball operations. One of those parameters would be staying under the luxury tax threshold unless and until my team gets into the playoffs. That's a parameter I would make clear at the outset to whoever I hire as my PBO. Yes, Rosas inherited Wiggins on a max contract. But he didn't inherit a team over the luxury tax threshold. Whatever the challenges a PBO faces, staying under the luxury tax threshold as a low lottery team should be part of the PBO's job. I wouldn't want my franchise to be in a position where our back is against the wall and we have to give up assets just to dump salary at the trade deadline to avoid luxury tax penalties. The Wolves will have considerably more payroll/luxury tax flexibility and a bevy of draft picks next summer to work with. I wouldn't want to waste any of those picks in a desperate move to dump salary.
Rosas gave up what turned out to be the #7 and #36 picks in this year's draft for DLO. He acquired Beasley and signed him to a relatively reasonable contract. He signed Naz Reid to a very team-friendly contract. He drafted Ant and McDaniels last year. Just recently, he made a smart move to acquire Patrick Beverley. Let's see if he can make another significant tweak yet this summer without exceeding the luxury tax threshold. And then let's see how well this core that Rosas has built can perform next season.
We've talked about adding Millsap. Monster and I have talked about possibly signing Hartenstein. I know at least one person on this board and suggested signing Harry Giles. I posted Hartenstein's highlights from last season. Here's a video of Giles' highlights:
1) In putting ourselves in the owners' shoes, we shouldn't do so in a vacuum without taking into account that we would be the very same owner who stood behind our GM and his previous moves. We okayed the team being over the soft cap for quite a while.
2) Last year was heavily impacted by injury and a mid season coaching change. We SHOULD see health and coaching improvements this year, but hey.. it's MN sports and we all know how many times we've been repeatedly kicked in the nuts.
3) Considering the talent on the roster as well as next summers flexibility, I would be fine with Rosas going slightly over the tax line to start the season while being able to dive under it before the trade deadline or via a buyout, Plus adding good veteran presence around the younger talent should benefit these players going forward.
What's the worst case here? The wolves go above the line, flame out and get stuck over the tax line. At which point they would have much bigger problems to worry about and next summer I'd mandate to Rosas he has to just shed the expiring money and at no point hit the tax line (avoiding repeater tax issues). If this happened I'd expect there to be major changes as it would mean the roster under performed or just simply is incapable of staying reasonably healthy.
Camden wrote:Boston Celtics center Robert Williams has agreed on a four-year, $54M contract extension.
If he can stay relatively healthy, that's a fantastic deal for the Celtics. Williams is a stud.
Yep, one of my favorites. He's the kind of guy I would love to have on the Wolves, and I'm thinking Vando might be our best chance. There are some similarities. Hard nosed defenders and rebounders with little outside shooting. Vano takes almost 80% of hos shots within 3 feet, and so did Williams his first two years. Williams has added some efficient scoring from 3-10 feet in his third season. It would be nice if Vando could expand his game like Williams did at age 22.
Camden wrote:Boston Celtics center Robert Williams has agreed on a four-year, $54M contract extension.
If he can stay relatively healthy, that's a fantastic deal for the Celtics. Williams is a stud.
Yep, one of my favorites. He's the kind of guy I would love to have on the Wolves, and I'm thinking Vando might be our best chance. There are some similarities. Hard nosed defenders and rebounders with little outside shooting. Vano takes almost 80% of hos shots within 3 feet, and so did Williams his first two years. Williams has added some efficient scoring from 3-10 feet in his third season. It would be nice if Vando could expand his game like Williams did at age 22.
Anyway, nice signing for Boston.
I agree with you guys on this. Great re-sign for the Celtics. FNG - I think I know what you mean in comparing Williams and Vanderbilt as two defenders and rebounders who aren't good shooters. Of course, a big difference is that Williams was 237 pounds with a 7'4-7'5 wingspan coming out of college while Vanderbilt came into the League at around 215 pounds with a 6'11 wingspan. So Williams brings resale size - weight and length as well as rim-protection to the equation while Vanderbilt doesn't. I still really want the Wolves to re-sign Vando and believe he can be a very good rotation PF for the Wolves. But Williams is precisely what the Wolves really need. Unfortunately, he wasn't gettable. The good news is that Vando will cost a lot less than Williams to keep in the fold. One of the things I like about Hartenstein is that he brings more size like Williams - although not quite as much.
The prices for any real talent in free agency seem out of whack. I think even if we got cap space I dont see a Milsap signing as realistic. If Layman and a 2nd could be traded for a Bagley or WCS Im interested. I just think Rosas will be content to roll with what he has which is why I chose C as the likely outcome. We're still small but we have some interesting balance on both units once we sign Vando.
thedoper wrote:The prices for any real talent in free agency seem out of whack. I think even if we got cap space I dont see a Milsap signing as realistic. If Layman and a 2nd could be traded for a Bagley or WCS Im interested. I just think Rosas will be content to roll with what he has which is why I chose C as the likely outcome. We're still small but we have some interesting balance on both units once we sign Vando.
You might be right, Doper. Layman and a 2nd for WCS or Bagley would be interesting. I'm not sure what to think of the Millsap situation. I think it's interesting that he's remained unsigned this long. I wonder how much of that is a lack of team interest in him versus him holding out for more money or the right situation. He did just turn 36 and his defensive stats were down significantly last season. Maybe teams around the League, looking at those numbers and watching lots of film, have concluded that he's had that huge drop off that often happens quite suddenly when a player is 35 or older. Teams around the League are running out of roster spots and salary room to sign free agents. So it might not cost a lot to sign Millsap. It might just be a matter of whether he's willing to be part of a young team that will be struggling just to make the playoffs.
I think Millsap, Hartenstein and Giles are all gettable for the Wolves, although it might take a Layman maneuver to make it happen. My guess is that Rosas is holding off to keep a roster spot and some extra luxury tax room available for a big trade - i.e., Simmons or maybe Myles Turner. That's my guess based on Gersson's track record. Remember he kept a roster spot open all last season to have more flexibility for a potential trade by the February trade deadline. No such trade materialized of course. It's part of my problem with Gersson. It's like trading up for Garland without knowing for sure you'll be able to get him and then settling for Culver. In my view, it's not wise to squander assets or opportunities based on the theoretical potential that something better will be there. That's why I think Rosas should simply forget about Simmons and focus on the concrete, realistic opportunities he actually has in front of him. I think Millsap is one of those concrete, realistic opportunities. If not, I'm certain Hartenstein or Giles would be. So let's sign Vanderbilt and then sign one of those three free agents.
