Minnesota Sports Forum

Q12543 wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:We've always elevated Zach on this board, perhaps because he is such a likable, hardworking guy. But he's simply not a very good basketball player, and I for one am happy that we're not the team paying him $20 million per year. There's a reason a terrific athlete with a sweet shooting stroke like Zach couldn't crack the starting lineup in college...he just isn't a very smart basketball player. And I haven't seen many signs of his basketball IQ increasing during his 4 years in the NBA. His defense is atrocious, as is his decision-making on offense. And while we were largely disappointed with Wig's 44% shooting last season, imagine how we would have felt if he had shot 38% like Zach! As Monster said, his deal is getting panned on the internet and I have to agree. I'm not convinced he will ever be a plus NBA player.

LaVine's stats last season don't matter to me. It was on a limited sample immediately following his knee surgery. The basketball IQ issue is a real one, but I think he's educable.

Correct, you have to look at the season before, where he really started to emerge as a legit volume 3-point shooter and overall scorer. I think ultimately he becomes a very dangerous shooter/scorer. His shot is just so natural and easy looking. The question is whether he ever becomes an average defender and play maker. If he does, he could be an all star. If he doesn't, he'll be limited to being more of a bench gunner, ala Crawford, Nick Young, Gerald Green and guys like that.

I think you captured it, Q. Even at his worst, he's better than Crawford as a bench gunner because, unlike Crawford, LaVine is a genuine 3-point shooter. Remember Sam Mitchell playing LaVine at the point. There was clearly method to his madness as he tried to force Zach into becoming a decent playmaker by putting him at PG. I think he'll become an average playmaker. As for becoming an average defender, he certainly has the lateral quickness and he's highly competitive. His instincts just aren't there. It goes back to his basketball IQ. But I'd bet $80 million over 4 years on him as a better alternative to betting $150 million over 5 years on Wiggins.

lipoli390 wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:We've always elevated Zach on this board, perhaps because he is such a likable, hardworking guy. But he's simply not a very good basketball player, and I for one am happy that we're not the team paying him $20 million per year. There's a reason a terrific athlete with a sweet shooting stroke like Zach couldn't crack the starting lineup in college...he just isn't a very smart basketball player. And I haven't seen many signs of his basketball IQ increasing during his 4 years in the NBA. His defense is atrocious, as is his decision-making on offense. And while we were largely disappointed with Wig's 44% shooting last season, imagine how we would have felt if he had shot 38% like Zach! As Monster said, his deal is getting panned on the internet and I have to agree. I'm not convinced he will ever be a plus NBA player.

LaVine's stats last season don't matter to me. It was on a limited sample immediately following his knee surgery. The basketball IQ issue is a real one, but I think he's educable.

Correct, you have to look at the season before, where he really started to emerge as a legit volume 3-point shooter and overall scorer. I think ultimately he becomes a very dangerous shooter/scorer. His shot is just so natural and easy looking. The question is whether he ever becomes an average defender and play maker. If he does, he could be an all star. If he doesn't, he'll be limited to being more of a bench gunner, ala Crawford, Nick Young, Gerald Green and guys like that.

I think you captured it, Q. Even at his worst, he's better than Crawford as a bench gunner because, unlike Crawford, LaVine is a genuine 3-point shooter. Remember Sam Mitchell playing LaVine at the point. There was clearly method to his madness as he tried to force Zach into becoming a decent playmaker by putting him at PG. I think he'll become an average playmaker. As for becoming an average defender, he certainly has the lateral quickness and he's highly competitive. His instincts just aren't there. It goes back to his basketball IQ. But I'd bet $80 million over 4 years on him as a better alternative to betting $150 million over 5 years on Wiggins.

How do you feel about Booker for 5 years 158 million?

I wonder at some point there will be somewhat of a breaking point where the 3 point shooting we thoughts some guys had as a value isn't quite as significant because more guys come in with a Steph Curry and the new NBA which leads to more 3 point shooters overall at the perimeter positions. We have already seen the bigs move that direction. It will be interesting to see how the game continues to evolve. Obviously not everyone is going to be a good 3 point shooter including some guys already in the league.

Bulls matched anyways I saw.

monsterpile wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:We've always elevated Zach on this board, perhaps because he is such a likable, hardworking guy. But he's simply not a very good basketball player, and I for one am happy that we're not the team paying him $20 million per year. There's a reason a terrific athlete with a sweet shooting stroke like Zach couldn't crack the starting lineup in college...he just isn't a very smart basketball player. And I haven't seen many signs of his basketball IQ increasing during his 4 years in the NBA. His defense is atrocious, as is his decision-making on offense. And while we were largely disappointed with Wig's 44% shooting last season, imagine how we would have felt if he had shot 38% like Zach! As Monster said, his deal is getting panned on the internet and I have to agree. I'm not convinced he will ever be a plus NBA player.

LaVine's stats last season don't matter to me. It was on a limited sample immediately following his knee surgery. The basketball IQ issue is a real one, but I think he's educable.

Correct, you have to look at the season before, where he really started to emerge as a legit volume 3-point shooter and overall scorer. I think ultimately he becomes a very dangerous shooter/scorer. His shot is just so natural and easy looking. The question is whether he ever becomes an average defender and play maker. If he does, he could be an all star. If he doesn't, he'll be limited to being more of a bench gunner, ala Crawford, Nick Young, Gerald Green and guys like that.

I think you captured it, Q. Even at his worst, he's better than Crawford as a bench gunner because, unlike Crawford, LaVine is a genuine 3-point shooter. Remember Sam Mitchell playing LaVine at the point. There was clearly method to his madness as he tried to force Zach into becoming a decent playmaker by putting him at PG. I think he'll become an average playmaker. As for becoming an average defender, he certainly has the lateral quickness and he's highly competitive. His instincts just aren't there. It goes back to his basketball IQ. But I'd bet $80 million over 4 years on him as a better alternative to betting $150 million over 5 years on Wiggins.

How do you feel about Booker for 5 years 158 million?

I wonder at some point there will be somewhat of a breaking point where the 3 point shooting we thoughts some guys had as a value isn't quite as significant because more guys come in with a Steph Curry and the new NBA which leads to more 3 point shooters overall at the perimeter positions. We have already seen the bigs move that direction. It will be interesting to see how the game continues to evolve. Obviously not everyone is going to be a good 3 point shooter including some guys already in the league.

The Booker deal is bad.....the Wiggins deal is bad.....the Lavine deal is bad.

I have been harping on this forever. It used to be that a MAX deal was truly dedicated for superstar players, and salaries fell in line behind those guys. Now, a MAX or near max deal is issued to every player that is above average simply because teams feel they can't afford to lose these players. Is Booker a good player? Certainly. Is he worth $158MM....nope. Why? Because when a player takes up that much of your cap space, they need to be able to almost win on their own....and Booker ain't that guy. Very few are, in fact.

But until owners realize that sometimes you just have to let a guy go, it will continue on this way. I mean, let's take a look at guys the Wolves could have had in aggregate with no Wiggins:
- Tyreke @ 1YR $12MM
- Randle @ 2YR $18MM
- O'Quinn @ 1YR $5MM
- Belinelli @ 2YR $12MM
- etc....etc....

And I think we are still under what we pay Wiggins.....

Hicks123 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:We've always elevated Zach on this board, perhaps because he is such a likable, hardworking guy. But he's simply not a very good basketball player, and I for one am happy that we're not the team paying him $20 million per year. There's a reason a terrific athlete with a sweet shooting stroke like Zach couldn't crack the starting lineup in college...he just isn't a very smart basketball player. And I haven't seen many signs of his basketball IQ increasing during his 4 years in the NBA. His defense is atrocious, as is his decision-making on offense. And while we were largely disappointed with Wig's 44% shooting last season, imagine how we would have felt if he had shot 38% like Zach! As Monster said, his deal is getting panned on the internet and I have to agree. I'm not convinced he will ever be a plus NBA player.

LaVine's stats last season don't matter to me. It was on a limited sample immediately following his knee surgery. The basketball IQ issue is a real one, but I think he's educable.

Correct, you have to look at the season before, where he really started to emerge as a legit volume 3-point shooter and overall scorer. I think ultimately he becomes a very dangerous shooter/scorer. His shot is just so natural and easy looking. The question is whether he ever becomes an average defender and play maker. If he does, he could be an all star. If he doesn't, he'll be limited to being more of a bench gunner, ala Crawford, Nick Young, Gerald Green and guys like that.

I think you captured it, Q. Even at his worst, he's better than Crawford as a bench gunner because, unlike Crawford, LaVine is a genuine 3-point shooter. Remember Sam Mitchell playing LaVine at the point. There was clearly method to his madness as he tried to force Zach into becoming a decent playmaker by putting him at PG. I think he'll become an average playmaker. As for becoming an average defender, he certainly has the lateral quickness and he's highly competitive. His instincts just aren't there. It goes back to his basketball IQ. But I'd bet $80 million over 4 years on him as a better alternative to betting $150 million over 5 years on Wiggins.

How do you feel about Booker for 5 years 158 million?

I wonder at some point there will be somewhat of a breaking point where the 3 point shooting we thoughts some guys had as a value isn't quite as significant because more guys come in with a Steph Curry and the new NBA which leads to more 3 point shooters overall at the perimeter positions. We have already seen the bigs move that direction. It will be interesting to see how the game continues to evolve. Obviously not everyone is going to be a good 3 point shooter including some guys already in the league.

The Booker deal is bad.....the Wiggins deal is bad.....the Lavine deal is bad.

I have been harping on this forever. It used to be that a MAX deal was truly dedicated for superstar players, and salaries fell in line behind those guys. Now, a MAX or near max deal is issued to every player that is above average simply because teams feel they can't afford to lose these players. Is Booker a good player? Certainly. Is he worth $158MM....nope. Why? Because when a player takes up that much of your cap space, they need to be able to almost win on their own....and Booker ain't that guy. Very few are, in fact.

But until owners realize that sometimes you just have to let a guy go, it will continue on this way. I mean, let's take a look at guys the Wolves could have had in aggregate with no Wiggins:
- Tyreke @ 1YR $12MM
- Randle @ 2YR $18MM
- O'Quinn @ 1YR $5MM
- Belinelli @ 2YR $12MM
- etc....etc....

And I think we are still under what we pay Wiggins.....

The problem with that attitude is you are going to be perpetually rebuilding forever. Not every top pick is a franchise carrying star. Some drafts just don't have that guy. So unless you have the market to attract stars you are just constantly rebuilding and never get that guy. Look at how long the Suns and Magic have been in the lottery now. They aren't drafting that guy so they are just supposed to let good players go like Booker and Gordan just because they aren't franchise carrying guys? This is the problem with championship or bust mentality. For small markets you need the perfect run to even have a chance and even then you look at a team like OKC who only made the finals once. Good luck keeping a fan base when you are rebuilding every year and then let good players walk because they aren't great.

khans2k5 wrote:

Hicks123 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:We've always elevated Zach on this board, perhaps because he is such a likable, hardworking guy. But he's simply not a very good basketball player, and I for one am happy that we're not the team paying him $20 million per year. There's a reason a terrific athlete with a sweet shooting stroke like Zach couldn't crack the starting lineup in college...he just isn't a very smart basketball player. And I haven't seen many signs of his basketball IQ increasing during his 4 years in the NBA. His defense is atrocious, as is his decision-making on offense. And while we were largely disappointed with Wig's 44% shooting last season, imagine how we would have felt if he had shot 38% like Zach! As Monster said, his deal is getting panned on the internet and I have to agree. I'm not convinced he will ever be a plus NBA player.

LaVine's stats last season don't matter to me. It was on a limited sample immediately following his knee surgery. The basketball IQ issue is a real one, but I think he's educable.

Correct, you have to look at the season before, where he really started to emerge as a legit volume 3-point shooter and overall scorer. I think ultimately he becomes a very dangerous shooter/scorer. His shot is just so natural and easy looking. The question is whether he ever becomes an average defender and play maker. If he does, he could be an all star. If he doesn't, he'll be limited to being more of a bench gunner, ala Crawford, Nick Young, Gerald Green and guys like that.

I think you captured it, Q. Even at his worst, he's better than Crawford as a bench gunner because, unlike Crawford, LaVine is a genuine 3-point shooter. Remember Sam Mitchell playing LaVine at the point. There was clearly method to his madness as he tried to force Zach into becoming a decent playmaker by putting him at PG. I think he'll become an average playmaker. As for becoming an average defender, he certainly has the lateral quickness and he's highly competitive. His instincts just aren't there. It goes back to his basketball IQ. But I'd bet $80 million over 4 years on him as a better alternative to betting $150 million over 5 years on Wiggins.

How do you feel about Booker for 5 years 158 million?

I wonder at some point there will be somewhat of a breaking point where the 3 point shooting we thoughts some guys had as a value isn't quite as significant because more guys come in with a Steph Curry and the new NBA which leads to more 3 point shooters overall at the perimeter positions. We have already seen the bigs move that direction. It will be interesting to see how the game continues to evolve. Obviously not everyone is going to be a good 3 point shooter including some guys already in the league.

The Booker deal is bad.....the Wiggins deal is bad.....the Lavine deal is bad.

I have been harping on this forever. It used to be that a MAX deal was truly dedicated for superstar players, and salaries fell in line behind those guys. Now, a MAX or near max deal is issued to every player that is above average simply because teams feel they can't afford to lose these players. Is Booker a good player? Certainly. Is he worth $158MM....nope. Why? Because when a player takes up that much of your cap space, they need to be able to almost win on their own....and Booker ain't that guy. Very few are, in fact.

But until owners realize that sometimes you just have to let a guy go, it will continue on this way. I mean, let's take a look at guys the Wolves could have had in aggregate with no Wiggins:
- Tyreke @ 1YR $12MM
- Randle @ 2YR $18MM
- O'Quinn @ 1YR $5MM
- Belinelli @ 2YR $12MM
- etc....etc....

And I think we are still under what we pay Wiggins.....

The problem with that attitude is you are going to be perpetually rebuilding forever. Not every top pick is a franchise carrying star. Some drafts just don't have that guy. So unless you have the market to attract stars you are just constantly rebuilding and never get that guy. Look at how long the Suns and Magic have been in the lottery now. They aren't drafting that guy so they are just supposed to let good players go like Booker and Gordan just because they aren't franchise carrying guys? This is the problem with championship or bust mentality. For small markets you need the perfect run to even have a chance and even then you look at a team like OKC who only made the finals once. Good luck keeping a fan base when you are rebuilding every year and then let good players walk because they aren't great.

I don't like the openness that some people feel toward perpetually rebuilding (always prioritizing future assets and young guys and being willing to trade vets and lose games for draft picks).

But I also agree that too many guys get max deals. You gotta have stars on your team, but it actually HURTS your chances of doing that if you pay max money to guys who don't deserve it because it eats up any cap space you could use for real stars. That's why teams should try to trade those guys at the end of their rookie deals if they are confident the guy will not become a legit star.

That's why paying Wiggins the max was a mistake (I just don't see any chance he is going to improve nearly enough to become a star), and why paying KAT the max is legit (he's already been an All-Star and if his defense can only improve, he'll be a legitimate star). There are always risky situations where it's not clear what to do. Oladipo comes to mind. Nobody really knew he was going to make this jump this year, but there were more signs it could happen than there are with Wiggins. Booker I'm wary about. A guy with defense that bad really HAS to become a Stephen Curry type of offensive talent.

Side note: one of the reasons I really like Wendell Carter is that he's exactly the kind of guy who will probably never put up the kind of stats to be able to demand max money, even though I think he'll have the kind of impact you expect from a max player like Horford. He's kind of boring to watch honestly, but I expect he's going to be extremely effective. I think those kinds of guys are extremely valuable because you can probably keep them for less than max money even though they can give you near-max impact--that's a highly efficient use of cap space. Just like you want players to be efficient shooters, teams need to be very efficient with how they spend their money. Despite all the increased attention to advanced stats that recognize the value of guys like Carter, it seems like big money still seems to follow raw offensive stats--see: LaVine, Booker, Wiggins. You still need stars, but smart GMs should be able to recognize that market inefficiency and capitalize.

I don't get the LaVine v. Wiggins camps. Can't we just be happy the Wolves aren't paying both of them? Even if you want to be revisionist and force some team to make an offer to Wiggins in RFA, the offer was clearly coming if LaVine got one off his previous season.

khans2k5 wrote:

Hicks123 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:We've always elevated Zach on this board, perhaps because he is such a likable, hardworking guy. But he's simply not a very good basketball player, and I for one am happy that we're not the team paying him $20 million per year. There's a reason a terrific athlete with a sweet shooting stroke like Zach couldn't crack the starting lineup in college...he just isn't a very smart basketball player. And I haven't seen many signs of his basketball IQ increasing during his 4 years in the NBA. His defense is atrocious, as is his decision-making on offense. And while we were largely disappointed with Wig's 44% shooting last season, imagine how we would have felt if he had shot 38% like Zach! As Monster said, his deal is getting panned on the internet and I have to agree. I'm not convinced he will ever be a plus NBA player.

LaVine's stats last season don't matter to me. It was on a limited sample immediately following his knee surgery. The basketball IQ issue is a real one, but I think he's educable.

Correct, you have to look at the season before, where he really started to emerge as a legit volume 3-point shooter and overall scorer. I think ultimately he becomes a very dangerous shooter/scorer. His shot is just so natural and easy looking. The question is whether he ever becomes an average defender and play maker. If he does, he could be an all star. If he doesn't, he'll be limited to being more of a bench gunner, ala Crawford, Nick Young, Gerald Green and guys like that.

I think you captured it, Q. Even at his worst, he's better than Crawford as a bench gunner because, unlike Crawford, LaVine is a genuine 3-point shooter. Remember Sam Mitchell playing LaVine at the point. There was clearly method to his madness as he tried to force Zach into becoming a decent playmaker by putting him at PG. I think he'll become an average playmaker. As for becoming an average defender, he certainly has the lateral quickness and he's highly competitive. His instincts just aren't there. It goes back to his basketball IQ. But I'd bet $80 million over 4 years on him as a better alternative to betting $150 million over 5 years on Wiggins.

How do you feel about Booker for 5 years 158 million?

I wonder at some point there will be somewhat of a breaking point where the 3 point shooting we thoughts some guys had as a value isn't quite as significant because more guys come in with a Steph Curry and the new NBA which leads to more 3 point shooters overall at the perimeter positions. We have already seen the bigs move that direction. It will be interesting to see how the game continues to evolve. Obviously not everyone is going to be a good 3 point shooter including some guys already in the league.

The Booker deal is bad.....the Wiggins deal is bad.....the Lavine deal is bad.

I have been harping on this forever. It used to be that a MAX deal was truly dedicated for superstar players, and salaries fell in line behind those guys. Now, a MAX or near max deal is issued to every player that is above average simply because teams feel they can't afford to lose these players. Is Booker a good player? Certainly. Is he worth $158MM....nope. Why? Because when a player takes up that much of your cap space, they need to be able to almost win on their own....and Booker ain't that guy. Very few are, in fact.

But until owners realize that sometimes you just have to let a guy go, it will continue on this way. I mean, let's take a look at guys the Wolves could have had in aggregate with no Wiggins:
- Tyreke @ 1YR $12MM
- Randle @ 2YR $18MM
- O'Quinn @ 1YR $5MM
- Belinelli @ 2YR $12MM
- etc....etc....

And I think we are still under what we pay Wiggins.....

The problem with that attitude is you are going to be perpetually rebuilding forever. Not every top pick is a franchise carrying star. Some drafts just don't have that guy. So unless you have the market to attract stars you are just constantly rebuilding and never get that guy. Look at how long the Suns and Magic have been in the lottery now. They aren't drafting that guy so they are just supposed to let good players go like Booker and Gordan just because they aren't franchise carrying guys? This is the problem with championship or bust mentality. For small markets you need the perfect run to even have a chance and even then you look at a team like OKC who only made the finals once. Good luck keeping a fan base when you are rebuilding every year and then let good players walk because they aren't great.

You nailed the problem as I see it. The Suns feel like they HAVE to pay max deal to keep Booker, a good but not great player. The Wolves felt like they HAD to pay Wiggins a max deal or he would have walked away. My point isn't to create a revolving door for guys, but pay them appropriate to their impact so you can build around them.

As an example, you could have certainly got all 4 guys listed above for 3-4 years each at deals near their yearly salaries listed above (i.e. Evans @ 4YR $40MM, O'Quinn @ 3YR $13MM, etc). Maybe some guys would want 1YR "prove it" deals, but many would take the longer contract and guaranteed money. Would you want all 4 guys listed above for next 3-4 years @ $30MM or Wiggins alone at $35MM? The answer for me is easy. With those 4 players as examples, we have a much more stable roster, and frankly, a lot better talent. And in fact, paying mediocre players like Wiggins that much money all but guarantees a revolving door system every season, as you have to continually get vet min guys that you would only want for a year. The problem you mention is created by overpaying these types of players. I stand by paying superstars superstar type money, but you need to be willing to walk away from some players even if you get "nothing" in return.

I haven't seen Booker play a ton but the guy was 21 and put up nearly 25-5-5. Yes it was on a bad team and all that stuff but that's some pretty good production and has seemed to improved every year...And he turns 22 in October. It seems like so many people have decided this guy won't be a star. Do i think he will be a star? IDK but I don't think its decided either. Keep in mind that it won't be long before starting level wings will be making 20 million a year again. These cheap deals we are seeing now are not going to last.

These FAs that have been brought up (or can be signed) aren't sure things either. Which Tyreke Evans are you getting? IS Randle a starting level player? ( I think so but its not certain). Belinelli is basically a more efficient somewhat less bad defensive version of Crawford. How many times has it been brought up over the years what FAs that signed for the full mid-level were actually worth it? Maybe we should revisit that but a few years ago it was not pretty. Remember how awesome that Patterson deal was last year for OKC? Not really. Whether its the draft FA signing young players there is always an element of some sort of gamble. I think often we forget this is the case in all of the situations.

Hicks123 wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

Hicks123 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:We've always elevated Zach on this board, perhaps because he is such a likable, hardworking guy. But he's simply not a very good basketball player, and I for one am happy that we're not the team paying him $20 million per year. There's a reason a terrific athlete with a sweet shooting stroke like Zach couldn't crack the starting lineup in college...he just isn't a very smart basketball player. And I haven't seen many signs of his basketball IQ increasing during his 4 years in the NBA. His defense is atrocious, as is his decision-making on offense. And while we were largely disappointed with Wig's 44% shooting last season, imagine how we would have felt if he had shot 38% like Zach! As Monster said, his deal is getting panned on the internet and I have to agree. I'm not convinced he will ever be a plus NBA player.

LaVine's stats last season don't matter to me. It was on a limited sample immediately following his knee surgery. The basketball IQ issue is a real one, but I think he's educable.

Correct, you have to look at the season before, where he really started to emerge as a legit volume 3-point shooter and overall scorer. I think ultimately he becomes a very dangerous shooter/scorer. His shot is just so natural and easy looking. The question is whether he ever becomes an average defender and play maker. If he does, he could be an all star. If he doesn't, he'll be limited to being more of a bench gunner, ala Crawford, Nick Young, Gerald Green and guys like that.

I think you captured it, Q. Even at his worst, he's better than Crawford as a bench gunner because, unlike Crawford, LaVine is a genuine 3-point shooter. Remember Sam Mitchell playing LaVine at the point. There was clearly method to his madness as he tried to force Zach into becoming a decent playmaker by putting him at PG. I think he'll become an average playmaker. As for becoming an average defender, he certainly has the lateral quickness and he's highly competitive. His instincts just aren't there. It goes back to his basketball IQ. But I'd bet $80 million over 4 years on him as a better alternative to betting $150 million over 5 years on Wiggins.

How do you feel about Booker for 5 years 158 million?

I wonder at some point there will be somewhat of a breaking point where the 3 point shooting we thoughts some guys had as a value isn't quite as significant because more guys come in with a Steph Curry and the new NBA which leads to more 3 point shooters overall at the perimeter positions. We have already seen the bigs move that direction. It will be interesting to see how the game continues to evolve. Obviously not everyone is going to be a good 3 point shooter including some guys already in the league.

The Booker deal is bad.....the Wiggins deal is bad.....the Lavine deal is bad.

I have been harping on this forever. It used to be that a MAX deal was truly dedicated for superstar players, and salaries fell in line behind those guys. Now, a MAX or near max deal is issued to every player that is above average simply because teams feel they can't afford to lose these players. Is Booker a good player? Certainly. Is he worth $158MM....nope. Why? Because when a player takes up that much of your cap space, they need to be able to almost win on their own....and Booker ain't that guy. Very few are, in fact.

But until owners realize that sometimes you just have to let a guy go, it will continue on this way. I mean, let's take a look at guys the Wolves could have had in aggregate with no Wiggins:
- Tyreke @ 1YR $12MM
- Randle @ 2YR $18MM
- O'Quinn @ 1YR $5MM
- Belinelli @ 2YR $12MM
- etc....etc....

And I think we are still under what we pay Wiggins.....

The problem with that attitude is you are going to be perpetually rebuilding forever. Not every top pick is a franchise carrying star. Some drafts just don't have that guy. So unless you have the market to attract stars you are just constantly rebuilding and never get that guy. Look at how long the Suns and Magic have been in the lottery now. They aren't drafting that guy so they are just supposed to let good players go like Booker and Gordan just because they aren't franchise carrying guys? This is the problem with championship or bust mentality. For small markets you need the perfect run to even have a chance and even then you look at a team like OKC who only made the finals once. Good luck keeping a fan base when you are rebuilding every year and then let good players walk because they aren't great.

You nailed the problem as I see it. The Suns feel like they HAVE to pay max deal to keep Booker, a good but not great player. The Wolves felt like they HAD to pay Wiggins a max deal or he would have walked away. My point isn't to create a revolving door for guys, but pay them appropriate to their impact so you can build around them.

As an example, you could have certainly got all 4 guys listed above for 3-4 years each at deals near their yearly salaries listed above (i.e. Evans @ 4YR $40MM, O'Quinn @ 3YR $13MM, etc). Maybe some guys would want 1YR "prove it" deals, but many would take the longer contract and guaranteed money. Would you want all 4 guys listed above for next 3-4 years @ $30MM or Wiggins alone at $35MM? The answer for me is easy. With those 4 players as examples, we have a much more stable roster, and frankly, a lot better talent. And in fact, paying mediocre players like Wiggins that much money all but guarantees a revolving door system every season, as you have to continually get vet min guys that you would only want for a year. The problem you mention is created by overpaying these types of players. I stand by paying superstars superstar type money, but you need to be willing to walk away from some players even if you get "nothing" in return.

Your group of 4 doesn't make any better of a team than keeping the overpaid guy. Both teams get stomped out by the real stars in the league. One way you have a guy who could be that star maybe (even if unlikely). And the other you have 4 mediocre to maybe above average players who have no shot at being stars. Your way is actually worse IMO because you have 0 shot at a real star whereas Booker and Wiggins still have chances no matter how small at becoming the guy you need. Both teams can be solid and neither can beat the real stars so why wouldn't you take the chance on the potential star over the guaranteed no star approach for a similar team? That's why they pay them. They hope they develop into the star that you need anyway to beat the other stars and if they don't you are in the same spot as the other approach of paying a couple good players for the same amount total. These max deals aren't going to old guys. They're going to young guys with star potential because getting stars is what it takes to win.