Tristan Thompson

[Ecmic]

e

 

[Rich]

point is theres 4 team out 4 i checked not cherry picked straight out of alphabetical order that could sign Tristan for 20 million.
Milsap, Gasol, Taj Gibson, Harrison Barnes and even the almighty green struggled against Thompson and he was a factor in each series. Including the boston one with klove. Teams will place value on that and if he omes off the bench and provide a simliar level of performance over 20 postseason games teams againwill be bidding for his services.

another point that seems to be lost on everyone. is that these teams can pay Mozgov too so the Cavs will be risking losing not one but two big men if Thompson signs the QO.

then the dominos could start to fall if JR has another good season and get his last shot at a 10+ contract.

I do not believe it will get that far. I feel comfortable that Tristan is gonna sign for 86

but the reports that there are 20 teams in a position to pay tristan and maybbe 4 of them would actually do it. seems pretty reasonable

Cavs aren't gonna offer him 86.

 

[Ecmic]

Out of curiosity, who are some examples of players who fit this precedent?

I found 0 big men this millennium that fit the 20% criteria. I only found 2 players period that fit - Tim Thomas and James Harden. Are there any others?

As far at the 17% threshold, I found 1 - Mehmet Okur.

If Thompson gets a 17%-20% contract, it looks like it'll be closer to unprecedented than to something that's had "plenty of precedent".

 

[Rich]

Out of curiosity, who are some examples of players who fit this precedent?

The other issue here is Torn just interchanges the numbers like they are close to the same. Someone who gets 16% of a 90 million dollar cap (even though the cap this year is only 70, let's argue from Torn's perspective) is getting 14.4 million while someone getting 20% is getting 18. These are two different classes of salaries entirely. They shouldn't just be lumped together like he's been doing.

Someone that starts their salary at 14.4 and gets 4.5% increases would have a contract worth 78 million over 5 years. A HUGE difference between that and a guy asking for 5/94.

 

[roozy]

Was Torn the guy that argued about the star potential of Waiters when people wanted him gone?

 

[The Oi]

Was Torn the guy that argued about the star potential of Waiters when people wanted him gone?

Torn has made a lot of arguments that wouldn't make sense to someone who wasn't headless.

 

[Rich]

Was Torn the guy that argued about the star potential of Waiters when people wanted him gone?

Yes. And then after he was gone he continued to argue that Waiters could have been doing the things Smith was doing if he had just been given a chance and that the teams problems weren't really his fault etc, etc.

Basically, if a guy has put on a Cavs jersey, or better yet, gets drafted by the Cavs, Torn is going to argue in his favor come hell or high water.

 

[Tornicade]

The other issue here is Torn just interchanges the numbers like they are close to the same. Someone who gets 16% of a 90 million dollar cap (even though the cap this year is only 70, let's argue from Torn's perspective) is getting 14.4 million while someone getting 20% is getting 18. These are two different classes of salaries entirely. They shouldn't just be lumped together like he's been doing.

Someone that starts their salary at 14.4 and gets 4.5% increases would have a contract worth 78 million over 5 years. A HUGE difference between that and a guy asking for 5/94.

20% for this season is 14 million. 25% is around 17.6 15 is 21.4%.

86 for example averages 17 million but starts out at 15. with a 7.5 raise yearly.
80 averages around 16 million which starts out at 14 with 1.05 million in increases yearly.
meaning the player wouldnt actually hit 16 until his 3rd yeard

as far a long term contract valuation. it has to have weight . the player is after all signing 4 or 5 years and although typically the cap doesnt jump any more than 5% we are seeing 10,20 and 20 jumps. where the difference betwen 20 percent in year 1 and year 3 is 6 million dollars . which is significant considering players can only get 7.5 raises max with bird rights

 

[Paul]

I can at least sort of understand the people who argue that we need to keep Tristan even if he costs us 80 or 95 or even 100 million because we can't afford to risk finding out what him not being on the team might do to our title chances. There's an element of risk in letting him walk or trading him. It's hard as fans to have the faith that we can land someone solid enough to fill that role, or that we could increase the roles of our other bigs to help fill Tristan's role (certainly LeBron could play more at the 4). This line of reasoning doesn't bug me all that much because it's not really saying that Tristan is worth the money, but just that we're stuck in a bad situation and it's better to overpay for an average player than to lose him and end up with someone below average.

The line of reasoning that does really bug me is the argument that Tristan is actually worth a max or near max contract based purely on merit. This line of reasoning is really big atm among a few folks from Fear the Sword and from Chris Haynes and others. Is there a single person other than TT and his mom who thought TT was a max player until very recently? This is all about Rich Paul trying to create a perception of his client as a max player and peer of Draymond Green and similarly talented players. Repeat the mantra enough and stand your ground, and apparently people start to believe it. If all else fails, cite the Enes Kanter contract (two wrongs don't make a right, the Enes Kanter contract was an overpay) as your ace in the hole.

People are so terrified of the prospect that we might have someone not as good as Tristan for our 3rd big that they are willing to max TT just to avoid the uncertainty of the situation. I have a lot of faith in David Griffin and his ability to work something out if we end up losing TT. You take his abilities as a GM and then couple that with the fact that there are a lot of big men who would jump at the chance of playing with the Cavs as a 3rd big for a vet minimum or MMLE level deal, and I don't think it would be hard to find a good match.

 

[Ecmic]

I can at least sort of understand the people who argue that we need to keep Tristan even if he costs us 80 or 95 or even 100 million because we can't afford to risk finding out what him not being on the team might do to our title chances. There's an element of risk in letting him walk or trading him. It's hard as fans to have the faith that we can land someone solid enough to fill that role, or that we could increase the roles of our other bigs to help fill Tristan's role (certainly LeBron could play more at the 4). This line of reasoning doesn't bug me all that much because it's not really saying that Tristan is worth the money, but just that we're stuck in a bad situation and it's better to overpay for an average player than to lose him and end up with someone below average.

The line of reasoning that does really bug me is the argument that Tristan is actually worth a max or near max contract based purely on merit. This line of reasoning is really big atm among a few folks from Fear the Sword and from Chris Haynes and others. Is there a single person other than TT and his mom who thought TT was a max player until very recently? This is all about Rich Paul trying to create a perception of his client as a max player and peer of Draymond Green and similarly talented players. Repeat the mantra enough and stand your ground, and apparently people start to believe it. If all else fails, cite the Enes Kanter contract (two wrongs don't make a right, the Enes Kanter contract was an overpay) as your ace in the hole.

People are so terrified of the prospect that we might have someone not as good as Tristan for our 3rd big that they are willing to max TT just to avoid the uncertainty of the situation. I have a lot of faith in David Griffin and his ability to work something out if we end up losing TT. You take his abilities as a GM and then couple that with the fact that there are a lot of big men who would jump at the chance of playing with the Cavs as a 3rd big for a vet minimum or MMLE level deal, and I don't think it would be hard to find a good match.

Yeah I agree with this. There's a pretty large contingent out there that believes Thompson is worth ~23.5% of another team's cap for 2016/17-2019/20 (the max contract weighted against projected caps for those years). I keep hearing that teams will be lining up to offer him the max, because of his amazing rebounding (Rodman's name has been thrown around a bit) and his perimeter defense and dive abilities. This tells me two things: a lot of people don't know much of Dennis Rodman, and a lot of people also overvalue comparatively less important parts of the game. Thompson is going to get a very friendly contract. But to argue he's intrinsically worth it is leap too far for me.

I had to throw my hands up and exit the room when I came across a conversation on another site in which it was argued - all things being equal - they'd rather have Thompson on their team than DeAndre Jordan.

 

[HurricaneKid]

I don't think there is a valid argument to be made that Tris is "worth" 20%+ of a cap. I think the more viable argument is that with the salary cap rising with the velocity it is, that there are just too many teams with too much money that needs to be spent. And the free agent class is so mediocre that players like Tris are going to find themselves in the enviable position that teams are going to pay people just because if they don't they will be under the salary floor and have to give the money away anyhow.

In one of the more recent Lowe podcasts he spoke with Stan Van Gundy who talked about how GMs look at the totality of the teams they can put together and not necessarily each individual contract. They talked about how Orlando paid a massive amount to bring in Rashad Lewis and how it really turned the team around. So despite everyone screaming about how he was paid too much, the impact on the team was so significant it was a really good FA signing. TT COULD bring a team needing a spark a lot of energy. And the cap is going to go from 70M this year to 89M next year to 108M the following year. Meaning the salary FLOOR in two seasons will be 97.2M, OVER 50% higher than the CAP last year (63M). And these things don't regulate automatically. So yeah, the next two seasons are probably the two best years to be FAs in the history of the NBA. Not JUST because they are going to get paid, but because there is a paucity of players teams CAN pay.

When you sell a car you sell it for as much as you can get for it. So while his impact isn't substantial enough to force a salary in the ballpark of what he is demanding, the market is in such a weird spot it IS likely he would see more than people seem willing to acknowledge.

 

[Otsego Mar]

Torn has made a lot of arguments that wouldn't make sense to someone who wasn't headless.

As insufferable as it is to read through some of his posts, I appreciate the tact he uses when trying to defend his viewpoints - and he does present facts and well thought out reasoning. It's much better than reading posts from other users (who shall remain nameless) who can't get out from their own cornhole to see through to the other side and would rather attack posters than have a realistic debate and just love to complain.

 

[Lee]

Yeah I agree with this. There's a pretty large contingent out there that believes Thompson is worth ~23.5% of another team's cap for 2016/17-2019/20 (the max contract weighted against projected caps for those years). I keep hearing that teams will be lining up to offer him the max, because of his amazing rebounding (Rodman's name has been thrown around a bit) and his perimeter defense and dive abilities. This tells me two things: a lot of people don't know much of Dennis Rodman, and a lot of people also overvalue comparatively less important parts of the game. Thompson is going to get a very friendly contract. But to argue he's intrinsically worth it is leap too far for me.

I had to throw my hands up and exit the room when I came across a conversation on another site in which it was argued - all things being equal - they'd rather have Thompson on their team than DeAndre Jordan.

Personally i think the Rodman argument has merit. Is Tristan as good as Rodman, no, Rodman might be the greatest roll player of all time. But, Tristan might be a 75% Rodman, which is still very good.

But here is what is being ignored is how much Rodman got paid for that roll. Rodman was the 5th highest paid on the team, making 2.5 mill. Jordan made the most at about 4 mill a year. What Tristan is asking to become is the 3rd highest paid as a lesser version of Rodman.

Basically Tristan deserves to be the 5th highest paid just like that bulls team. Lebron, Love, Irving and Timmy (next year) all deserve more. I just think the Rodman comparison is being overlooked because he isnt nearly as good as him, but it is still a valid comparison, just need to put in perspective.

 

[Lee]

Also on the Rodman front, Rodman accounted for 28% of his teams rebounds, Tristan 19%. I still say Tristan should be happy being his team's 5th highest paid as that is a very fair contract for what he does.

 

[Rich]

Honestly, I feel even his playoff performance has been way, way overblown. Per 36 minutes he averaged 9.5 points, 10.7 rebounds, 1.2 blocks, and .4 assists. A PER of 15.4. These numbers are strongly similar to his regular season per 36 numbers. His PER was almost identical.

I mean, guys, does that look like a 100 million dollar player to anyone else?

Compare that to another offensively challenged big man who just got his max deal, DeAndre Jordan. This year in the playoffs, per 36, Jordan averaged 13.7 points, 14 rebounds, 2.5 blocks, and 1.2 assists. A PER of 20.7. These two players are in different tiers of big men and a lot of people had a problem with Jordan getting what he got.

And these playoffs were TTs finest hour. His defense was better than it ever has been and he played with a great intensity. But, ultimately, he was still a 10 and 10 guy who didn't block a lot of shots and offered absolutely no floor spacing. This is not a max level player, or even close to it.

And I don't "hate" TT. But those numbers are pretty accurate reflection of the type of player he is. If he's a starter in this league, he's a 10 and 10 player that won't protect the rim and will play some decent pick and roll defense.