Cap hold 5.1. Contract really 3.3. Wouldn't he sign right away? He can't get any more money. It is structured that he only gets what he gets.
All he has to do is sign the qualifying offer and that hold is 3 something million. He would be stupid not to sign it right away.
Why would we want to lose an instant 3.3 in cap room for a back up PG, when we could easily pick up a better financial option later in the summer? I like Maynor and all, but he is a back up PG
I not sure you been paying attention to league finances much. Even for a backup PG that is a decent price. You don't find guys who can play with starters and not give up a lot for the vet minimum unless you are MIA, or OKC and they want a championship before they retire. Jack for example is going to get a lot more.
It's not the amount of money, it's the point in which we would have to spend it. Adding a real center has got to be the top priority for us. If that means losing a back up PG then so be it. He was OKC's third string PG. It's not like we would be crying over losing him
Well sure C is priority. I trust Olshey knows how to handle this rodeo better then us. If he wants Maynor back at 3.3 then he feels it won't hinder him in the Center search and there is a reason for doing it.
This season maybe, but last season maynor was pivotal for the playoff success of okc. I think the injury had more to do with okc being comfortable losing him, plus their luxury tax spike. 3.3 million for okc would mean 6-7 in tax.
Pivotal? Huh, stats must not tell any of the story with him last year in the playoffs And 3.3 to us might mean losing out on a difference making center
I doubt it. I think the big time centers will already be swooped up. I also can't stomach watching our second unit pg fail miserably. If you think center is the most important position, I have to disagree. How hard would a incapable timid guard get the ball to the play when Lillards out of the game. A back up point is more important than you think. A dalembert can be easly had for 6 million. He would be able to start for at least 2 more seasons until we make that decision if Leonard is capable of starting at center. Or we could use Leonard and a couple players for a unbalanced trade for a capable center now. Maybe even use hickson and +5 million to grab a 12-13 mil per center. We have more flexibility with a maynor on our roster. It gives management the assurance that a reserve point doesn't need to be had.
Can't really understand how anyone could think a starter isn't more important than a back up? Especially in basketball where there are only 5.
I don't know. I see some extremely elite teams without a capable starter. Sometimes you make damn sure your floor generals are locked in and fill everything else when necessary. I think dalembert would be a solid center for a couple years, don't you?
I do. My point is, those teams you see without a capable starter would much rather add a capable starter over a back up. The Heat, for example have Udonis Haslem and Mario Chalmers starting. Do you think if they could, they'd rather upgrade their back up SF position over PF or PG?
There is value for each position. The pg is the most valuable position in today's nba. More important than even a center. When you have a terrible back up pg but capable center at both start and backup, your team is worse off, especially if you don't have a lj or wade able to run the offense. If Miami had a choice, I bet they get that pg before center hands down.
While it's good to be loaded in the starting lineup, there are some nuances: 1 - They have to sit down sometime. None of these guys are Wilt Chamberlain, and they can't play 48 minutes a night. As we've learned this season, the person who replaces them for 12 minutes is kind of important. 2 - They sometimes have to sit down in bunches. Foul trouble, getting winded, whatever... sometimes you need to sit three guys at a time. Our bench is so bad, so exceptionally dismal, that we can't have more than 1 of them in the game without our offense and defense suffering greatly. A bench with more than one competent player is more than kind of important now. 3 - They sometimes get injured. God forbid if we had to go with Nolan Smith or Will Barton starting for more than 1 game. A bench with competent players and one or two who could start a few games is really important. In other words, you can have a perfectly good starting lineup (we're between 75 and 80% of the way there, imho), and still lose a ton of games because the bench can't hold a lead or step up in tough times. In most cases, getting a good starter is better than getting three good bench players. Ours is not that case; instead you could make the case that three good bench guys are an equal need to our one good starter. We have a project that needs to simmer in the one starting position we really need to fill, and a bench with exactly two NBA-level players... split out equally between five players. No player on our bench is NBA level, except maybe Maynor. Not to say they won't get better, but that may be a long way off.
Yeah, I think we've proven thus far that we can play quite well without a starting C. But we can't play, period, without a half-way decent bench. Hickson at C is better than not having a back-up PG.
The bench is absolutely important, but as our own GM said, he needs to finish building the starters first before worrying about the bench. You simply can't add depth until you add the pieces that depth will be of use for
That's a false choice in my opinion. They need a starting center and a better bench. But if they can get a starting center and maybe an upgrade at the starting two, that possibly demotes a good player to a backup role and suddenly your bench is little better.
