PDA

View Full Version : Blind GM: What would you pay for Player A?



JasonJohnHorn
12-25-2014, 12:52 AM
I notice that a lot of guys are critical of certain GMs for making mistakes, and I'm guilty of this myself, but I'm curious if we didn't have hindsight, would we have made better decisions?


So here's the deal. I'll give you a player's stats (and yes, I realize you need an eye test to really do this, but let's just go with stats, otherwise this wouldn't be 'blind'), and you tell me what you would pay for him if you had cap space.


You have a young power forward (24 years old) with range. He's 6'11, 240 pound. His FG% is .447 and his 3pt$ is .345 (he took about 3 a game). His TS% is .529 and he just came off a season where he averaged 16 points and nearly 7 rebounds in 26 minutes of playing time, giving him 21 points and almost 9 rebounds per36. His passing game is compitent, but nothing to wrie home about. He gets 2.4 assists per36, and as many turnovers, so he moves the rock well enough to lead to plays, but like a lot of bigs, he doesn't take care of the ball as well as some. He gets about a steal and an block per36, but he's not a stand out defender. He put these numbers up on a lottery team that won somewhere in the mid 30's.


Now, per36, he's getting nearly 20/10 and good shooting percentages. He's shown stead improvement over his first four seasons. He can shoot threes, and he's young and has been healthy every season. What do you think is a fair annual salary, and how long a contract do you give him?

mightybosstone
12-25-2014, 01:37 AM
The defense is pretty key, especially since we're talking about a big man. You say that he's not a standout defender, but does that mean mediocre or just plain bad? If the guy is an average defender, than a young player putting up 16/7 with competent 3-point range is worth probably a 3-4 year deal worth maybe $8-9 million per year. I wouldn't go any more than that, because he's not very efficient, he's clearly not playing that many minutes and he's putting up those stats on a bad basketball team.

If he were a great defender, I'd be willing to go up to $12 million a year. If he's terrible, then he might not even be worth $5-6 million a year.

MTar786
12-25-2014, 04:18 AM
nvm

0nekhmer
12-25-2014, 06:37 AM
A big shooting low percentages is always a r red flag. Unless most shots are mid range, i don't see how you can hit less than 50 FG% But you say he's a 20/10 with "good" percentages this year? Stretch 4s who can rebound and score are worth 8+ mil a year now. Since he's young, I'd add a mil or two on top. His defense is what will set him apart though. Who is it BTW?

MTar786
12-25-2014, 07:35 AM
since you're asking i guess il give it a shot. seems like charlie vilanueva to me?

JasonJohnHorn
12-25-2014, 10:01 AM
since you're asking i guess il give it a shot. seems like charlie vilanueva to me?



It is! Good Call.

I think Mightybosstone had a great assessment.

Charlie-V isn't a great defender.... I wouldn't go so far as to call him bad. His percentage was a little lower than his first couple of seasons, but that's because he was taking jump shots.

Mhightbossstone suggested 8-9 mil for 3-4 years. That is essentially what he got from Joe Dumars. Dumars gets railed for that contract, but at the time, Charlie-V was playing well and looked very promising. It was hard to woo Odom from the Lakers at the time, because they had recently won, where as Detroit hadn't won since 2004. Detroit was, however, in a better position to win than the Bucks, so it was easy to woo Charlie-V over.

The contract, at the time, did not seem unreasonable, and had Charlie-V continued to develop, it would have been a steal. But for whatever reason, he just started playing less efficiently. I think coaching and team chemistry had something to do with it.

ewing
12-25-2014, 10:19 AM
It is! Good Call.

I think Mightybosstone had a great assessment.

Charlie-V isn't a great defender.... I wouldn't go so far as to call him bad. His percentage was a little lower than his first couple of seasons, but that's because he was taking jump shots.

Mhightbossstone suggested 8-9 mil for 3-4 years. That is essentially what he got from Joe Dumars. Dumars gets railed for that contract, but at the time, Charlie-V was playing well and looked very promising. It was hard to woo Odom from the Lakers at the time, because they had recently won, where as Detroit hadn't won since 2004. Detroit was, however, in a better position to win than the Bucks, so it was easy to woo Charlie-V over.

The contract, at the time, did not seem unreasonable, and had Charlie-V continued to develop, it would have been a steal. But for whatever reason, he just started playing less efficiently. I think coaching and team chemistry had something to do with it.


Charlie was a known underachiever that often mailed it in and had a ****** work effort since Nova. He put up scoring #s on a bad team and has never played a lick of D. I the correct answer would be i don't want him. Sorry, but Joe made an Isiah Thomas type move on this one IMO. Charlie has a lot of talent, Joe was banking on him actually applying it, i think his eyes got big based on the potential and paid Charlie for what he could be despite red flags that said he likely wont ever be that

mightybosstone
12-25-2014, 10:21 AM
It is! Good Call.

I think Mightybosstone had a great assessment.

Charlie-V isn't a great defender.... I wouldn't go so far as to call him bad. His percentage was a little lower than his first couple of seasons, but that's because he was taking jump shots.

Mhightbossstone suggested 8-9 mil for 3-4 years. That is essentially what he got from Joe Dumars. Dumars gets railed for that contract, but at the time, Charlie-V was playing well and looked very promising. It was hard to woo Odom from the Lakers at the time, because they had recently won, where as Detroit hadn't won since 2004. Detroit was, however, in a better position to win than the Bucks, so it was easy to woo Charlie-V over.

The contract, at the time, did not seem unreasonable, and had Charlie-V continued to develop, it would have been a steal. But for whatever reason, he just started playing less efficiently. I think coaching and team chemistry had something to do with it.

Now that I know who he is and I can see his full career numbers, I actually do think he was slightly overpaid. Villanueva has always been a below average defender. I think $6 million a year would have made more sense, although market value might not have allowed that. But given what they got out of Villanueva over the course of his contract, he wouldn't have lived up to that contract either.

I don't think he was crazy overpaid or anything. He did have a pretty good season that year.

ewing
12-25-2014, 11:14 AM
Charlie V is an example why a blind GM would be a bad one. You need eyes, ears, and data. fun game though. I wish we hadn't got the answer so fast :)

JasonJohnHorn
12-25-2014, 12:31 PM
Charlie V is an example why a blind GM would be a bad one. You need eyes, ears, and data. fun game though. I wish we hadn't got the answer so fast :)

Yeah... I didn't want people figuring that out.

Charlie-V looked great his rookie year, but fighting with Bosh for minutes didn't help his development.

The defense is the big thing. He was average at best. I wouldn't say he was 'bad'... he made some good plays, but if he was facing a versatile player, he wasn't going to slow them down without help.


I think GMs see the 20/10 per 36, and they think: All-Star. Especially at such a young age. The Bucks were bad, but it wasn't like they were the 76ers that year. They won games, just not a lot.

nycericanguy
12-25-2014, 12:48 PM
ahh well this was kind of confusing because you said coming off a 16 & 7 season but that was 5-6 years ago... completely different market back then... and of course his horrendous defense was a factor.

I would be interested to see what Tobias Harris gets this summer... kind of a similar situation... though his numbers across the board are better, as is his defense and he's younger... but still a young PF/SF putting up good numbers on a bad team.

Tg11
12-25-2014, 01:31 PM
Again it also depends on just who the player is

Shammyguy3
12-25-2014, 01:34 PM
So many of the variables that matter in situations like this are how successful is the franchise, who else the franchise has on the roster, what the roster's weaknesses are/goals towards the draft/free agency, etc.

Tg11
12-25-2014, 01:37 PM
So many of the variables that matter in situations like this are how successful is the franchise, who else the franchise has on the roster, what the roster's weaknesses are/goals towards the draft/free agency, etc.

Yes exactly yet another astute point that I was going to make but I just couldn't think to say that but since you did, great minds

ewing
12-26-2014, 02:54 AM
Yeah... I didn't want people figuring that out.

Charlie-V looked great his rookie year, but fighting with Bosh for minutes didn't help his development.

The defense is the big thing. He was average at best. I wouldn't say he was 'bad'... he made some good plays, but if he was facing a versatile player, he wasn't going to slow them down without help.


I think GMs see the 20/10 per 36, and they think: All-Star. Especially at such a young age. The Bucks were bad, but it wasn't like they were the 76ers that year. They won games, just not a lot.

I agree, but that was the problem with Charlie. He was fools gold. I'm a big east guy and i remember all the Charlie V hype. People don't realize how many tools he had. He wasn't quite Tim Thomas but he wasn't far off.

mjt20mik
12-26-2014, 05:03 AM
His issue was his work ethic and intensity on the court. He could have been something special but instead he just dropped off.

arlubas
12-26-2014, 09:15 AM
Charlie was a known underachiever that often mailed it in and had a ****** work effort since Nova. He put up scoring #s on a bad team and has never played a lick of D. I the correct answer would be i don't want him. Sorry, but Joe made an Isiah Thomas type move on this one IMO. Charlie has a lot of talent, Joe was banking on him actually applying it, i think his eyes got big based on the potential and paid Charlie for what he could be despite red flags that said he likely wont ever be that
Nova? Charlie V was a Husky, not a Wildcat.

Agreed on the rest of your post though. He always had a reputation of being lazy and not living up to the talent he had, which is why it was suspicious seeing those numbers from him on a contract year.