I never said Parson or Hayward deserves those max contracts. I kept saying just because teams a pigeonholed to paying max doesn't mean the players deserve it.
I mean, am I typing in English here? Did I ever say Kawhi is the only one who doesn't deserve max contracts while other lesser players do? Because you are acting like that was my point.
Did I not say that very few deserves it? Did I not say there are way too many overpaid players in the league?
Do you you truly believe Parson and Hayward deserves those max contracts? Do you also believe Johnson, Lewis and Arenas aren't/weren't overpaid? Just because one gets paid max doesn't mean he is worth it. Sadly.
how can a shitload of 2nd tier players all be overpriced?
teams can afford these contracts and they need these players to be contenders, so they pay them max contracts. if the demand is there, then you have to be reasonable about what the definition of "overpriced" or "deserving of max" is.
like if you need more than 1 star to win a chip, and the max salary exists, then you obviously have enough cap space to pay more than 1 player the max. if that applies to every single team, then how in the world are "very few" players really worth the max? it makes no sense whatsoever.
by that logic a team that doesn't overspend would get one superstar at a max contract and balk at ever signing a 2nd tier star because they don't want to "overspend." then they'd end up like KG in minny every season. is that the way a team should aim to be run?
Oh ok, now it's dumb because you disagree? So we're going to get to name calling now, alright.
So I can't have the opinion that only several superstars deserve max contracts? You truly believe everyone that gets max contract deserves it? Because you can simply say that "I think more players deserves max contract than you" but that isn't what I am getting. You seem content to say that I am dumb because I think only a few deserves max contracts. I am not saying teams shouldn't do it, they are forced to to get players but TO ME plenty out there aren't worth it.
Deserving and being forced to sign to keep them are different things. It only makes no sense to you because you refuse to understand it.
Just because you can pay/afford someone a certain amount to stay/come to your team doesn't mean they deserve it or are worth it their contracts. And just because you need a player desperately doesn't mean you aren't overpaying. Seattle thought they desperately needed Rashard Lewis so they overpaid. Wizards thought they needed Arenas so they overpaid. So you are saying that since those teams has the cap and they thought they needed those players in their roster that they didn't overpay?
Again you are confusing what I deem worth of their talent versus what they are worth because the teams are stuck offering you the big money to stay or come to their team.
You aren't getting my point, I am not saying it is bad for business or that you aren't going to overpay. It's competition and it's how it works, you got to pay and most of the time overpay to get a certain players. Some teams even send offer sheets to mess with the teams budget like Houston offering an absurd amount to Lin so NY has to match and overpay, it didn't work. But you think that contract is worth of what Lin gives your team? Because you are acting like all these max contracts are worth it. There are bad and good GMs out there for a reason.
If you truly believe I am saying these teams shouldn't pay players and just let them walk then you are just reaching because that is not what I am saying at all. I am weighing Kawhi price for what he can offer the teams. He was good for one series and I haven't seen him do much more in taking over the offensive side, especially outside of Pops system. He is in a team where he is the fourth best player overall and all hall famers (who all took pay cuts and didn't demand max contracts) with another hall famer coach. I just personally do not see it YET that Kawhi can be that ONE franchise player, worth of a max contract player.
Does that make sense? Because that is pretty damn subjective so i don't even know how you can argue with it?
Of course others will deem him worth it, others won't, I am not alone on this. So why is it a dumb when I say it? I am practically saying the same thing as other here but I am the dumb one? Because it isn't something you get or understand? Because you disagree with it?
And it is my opinion that very few deserves max contract but by your post, you are practically saying every team that signs anyone for max is worth it because they have the cap space to do so.
Again you are saying (by using Parson and Hayward being max contracts as example) that one player is worth max pay just because others are getting it but that is just not how I see it. That is how things works, sadly, but I look at a players worth differently.
And ONCE AGAIN, I never said the teams should take that route. I am not talking about the best business sense. We are talking about what you deem the player is actually worth. Not what teams should actually do to win. There is a big difference. For some reason, you chose to read it as if I am saying every team should only sign who I or they deem worthy to a max contract. I've said it over and over again, that isn't how the system works so i don't expect teams to do that.
At the end of the day it boils down to this. You think Kawhi is worth $90 mil for 5 years. Fine. I am not saying you or anyone else are wrong (I try not to do that) but I am going to state my opinion. From what I have seen from him, where he plays and how he plays and who he plays with and who he plays for, in the Spurs yes he can get paid that much if the team stays intact and he can excel in that system for the that 5 years which is ideal to his abilities. But do I think he is worth $90m for 5 years to all other teams outside of the Spurs where he has to prove he can score more than 12 pts a game (his average last season) and be more than a spot up shooter? No, I do not think he is there yet so no I do not think he is worth $90m for 5 years outside of the Spurs. I honestly am not even sure he is 100% worth it in the Spurs and if he can be their main superstar once Duncan, Parker and Ginolibil retires in a year or two.
lol you accuse me of name-calling (i didn't say you were dumb, said your point was dumb) when you're the one who started calling everyone pussies, panty-wearers, and sayin they can't read english. u serious? i thought you wanted everyone to man up.
I thought that exaggeration was an obvious joke? I didn't actually think neo took it seriously and that was directed at him. We shit on each other all the time but whatever.
As for the "am I typing in English" isn't really name calling, more like an expression of why people can't understand what I am saying.
If you are going to take that as name calling then how is saying my "point is dumb" not name calling? You practically called me dumb?
And yes, i am manning up. Am I crying about it? I posted my usual wall of text (I know yall missed it) to support my point without callign you dumb (again if you missed the other posts as joke then sorry, I must need more emoticons). This is my typical response, ya'll just forgot.
Given current pay scale- (Tiago 9m?), He certainly deserves more than the 3 mil pay scale.
BTW if my eyes don't deceive me, he is in a McDonald's commercial.
I don't think Tiago is worth that much, not even close but I understand why they had to sign him for that much and I'd understand why the Spurs might have to resign Kawhi for what he is asking for.
Not to pour more gas in the fire but Paul George has a 5 years $91m contract, now he is well worth that amount. Kawhi is asking $1m less than that and he is still arguably third or fourth best player in the team while George is definitely the best in his and is a legit All-Star/Superstar in the league. Durant has a 5 year/$89m contract, that one is more understandable as I think he signed a couple of years ago (while George signed last year) but Durant is well worth that contract and Kawhi is asking for more. Those are the example of players I see that are well deserved of max contracts.
Speaking of contracts, I am not sure what the Dubs are waiting for with Thompson when he is willing to sign now for guaranteed money than more money later yet the Dubs are holding out for the extra $3m?
Warriors refuse to trade Thompson for Kevin Love, which is a little bit insane, and shows how much they value him.
Thompson, obviously, wants a max extension since the team loves him so much that they wouldn't give him up for Kevin Love. Leverage!
Contract extension talks open with Thompson.
The new TV media deal means that if Thompson signs an extension now, he's giving up on a substantial payday he'd hit if he found himself a free agent in 2016. Thompson, shockingly, actually would rather have the security than a substantially higher payday despite no injury issues.
Negotiations get stuck about "$3 million apart" reportedly. Which makes no sense, as I wrote at the time, because the Warriors abandoned all leverage when they didn't trade him for Love.
Over the weekend, Thompson is then reported to be "frustrated" with the process.