PDA

View Full Version : Hypothetical Question/Scenario



Redrum187
02-11-2015, 04:37 PM
I was having a conversation with a friend about the possibility of a player who made every single shot he ever takes, regardless of the amount of defenders draped on him or where he was on the court when he took the shot. He also only needs 0.3 seconds to get his shot off from any location on the court. The catch is, he will only shoot once per game for the team, and refuses to play after he takes his shot.

As ridiculous as that sounds, knowing he is 100% from any place on the floor and he won't play more than 24 seconds per game (or take more than one shot), if you were an NBA GM, what is the max contract you'd be willing to offer him? Explain.

Secondary question: Lets say his team made the NBA Finals but they lost their first 3 games by 2 points (they never played him). For the next 4 games, his team was down by 2 points again with 0.3 seconds left in the 4th quarter, no time-outs to advance the ball, but they decided to play him. He takes the shot from the opponent's free throw line, making the long 3 point shot to win the game (for games 4,5,6, and 7). Does he deserve to be FMVP? Why or why not?

Goose17
02-11-2015, 04:43 PM
Can he play defense? Rebound? Pass?

Or does he literally walk on. Make a shot. And walk off.

Redrum187
02-11-2015, 04:45 PM
Can he play defense? Rebound? Pass?

Or does he literally walk on. Make a shot. And walk off.

No defense, turnover prone if he doesn't shoot, horrible passer. He's just Jesus Christ when it comes to catch and shooting. He also demands to come out of the game after he shoots.

Cal827
02-11-2015, 05:14 PM
No defense, turnover prone if he doesn't shoot, horrible passer. He's just Jesus Shuttlesworth when it comes to catch and shooting. He also demands to come out of the game after he shoots.

Fixed. :D

archdevil84
02-11-2015, 05:18 PM
so that means he's just a guaranteed three free points every game. not sure if thats worth much. even if you save him for the end of the game just in case if youre down 2 with 1 sec to go or something, most of the times youre not gonna be in that scenario and you wasted his free three points

Redrum187
02-11-2015, 05:23 PM
so that means he's just a guaranteed three free points every game. not sure if thats worth much. even if you save him for the end of the game just in case if youre down 2 with 1 sec to go or something, most of the times youre not gonna be in that scenario and you wasted his free three points

I understand what you're saying, but I think being down 1, 2, or 3 points happens quite a bit in this league. Look at the Phoenix Suns. If they had a guaranteed 3 points at the end of the game, they would be 4th or 5th seed right now. They have lost an insane amount of ultra close games.

Cal827
02-11-2015, 05:24 PM
The contract that I would offer him depends on what type of team I have.

If I have a team around me, where the players are defensively gifted, and play a grind it out type of game (E.g. Memphis), I'd probably offer him probably around 2 mill on a 2 year contract (4 mill total), maybe a little more.

With a defensively minded team, there will be a lot of games where the final score comes down to one or two buckets, so having a guy who can come in and hit a guaranteed game tying shot to force OT, or a game winning shot from deep, would be fantastic.

If I'm on a team who's known for offensive ability, with quite a few long range shooters however, (E.g. Cleveland, Toronto, Phoenix of old, etc), I'd probably pass on him or just offer the vet min for a single season. Those teams usually play the type of game where they blow out an opponent, or get blown out themselves. A loss by 15 and a loss by 12 count for the exact same thing. Besides, those teams usually have guys who could score are a very high rate and from pretty much everywhere. He might be a great catch and shooter, but teams would be aware of that, and probably start to zone in around him when he's trying to break through on a pick and roll (which could lead to very many turnovers as the season progresses, as you say, he can't pass the ball for ****)

The second scenario would be funny to see. But I think they would look at who got them in the position for him to hit that shot, as there probably would be someone who's numbers stick out on the team.

Vee-Rex
02-11-2015, 05:24 PM
I'd give him a few million per year tops. Paying a player a max contract is crippling to a team's salary cap space. That player had better have a bigger impact throughout the whole game.

At the same time, having a guaranteed win/tie at the end of a close game is big, especially for the playoffs. 2 or 3 million per year should be worth it IMO, even if the player doesn't play the rest of the game.

Redrum187
02-11-2015, 05:29 PM
The contract that I would offer him depends on what type of team I have.

If I have a team around me, where the players are defensively gifted, and play a grind it out type of game (E.g. Memphis), I'd probably offer him probably around 2 mill on a 2 year contract (4 mill total), maybe a little more.

With a defensively minded team, there will be a lot of games where the final score comes down to one or two buckets, so having a guy who can come in and hit a guaranteed game tying shot to force OT, or a game winning shot from deep, would be fantastic.

If I'm on a team who's known for offensive ability, with quite a few long range shooters however, (E.g. Cleveland, Toronto, Phoenix of old, etc), I'd probably pass on him or just offer the vet min for a single season. Those teams usually play the type of game where they blow out an opponent, or get blown out themselves. A loss by 15 and a loss by 12 count for the exact same thing. Besides, those teams usually have guys who could score are a very high rate and from pretty much everywhere. He might be a great catch and shooter, but teams would be aware of that, and probably start to zone in around him when he's trying to break through on a pick and roll (which could lead to very many turnovers as the season progresses, as you say, he can't pass the ball for ****)

The second scenario would be funny to see. But I think they would look at who got them in the position for him to hit that shot, as there probably would be someone who's numbers stick out on the team.

Right, but in this scenario, no defense would block his shot. He is 100% from any place on the floor 100% of the time he shoots. Dwight Howard, Anthony Davis, Serge Ibaka, Tim Duncan, and Tyson Chandler could make a circle around him from 40 feet away, and he will shoot and sink the long 3.

Goose17
02-11-2015, 05:36 PM
League minimum.

After that one shot he's useless. Even if you're down by 2-3 with a second lift, how often does that happen?

archdevil84
02-11-2015, 05:39 PM
i gues he could be very usefull for a defensive minded team like the grizzlies indeed. especially in the playoffs where the play style usually slows down a lot. in that case he would have decent value

Cal827
02-11-2015, 05:52 PM
Right, but in this scenario, no defense would block his shot. He is 100% from any place on the floor 100% of the time he shoots. Dwight Howard, Anthony Davis, Serge Ibaka, Tim Duncan, and Tyson Chandler could make a circle around him from 40 feet away, and he will shoot and sink the long 3.

I don't mean on the block. I mean on the inbound pass. If you know that when a guy gets the ball and if he gets the shot up you it's automatically going in, then teams will probably do everything possible to block him from getting the ball.

Most end of games scenarios start with the inbounds pass. So they would probably people throw themselves at the ball once it appears to be going to him lol

Hawkeye15
02-11-2015, 06:01 PM
couldn't give him much money, because you would need it all to spend on a roster that could put him in the hypothetical situation to come into playoff games and hit the game winner.

mngopher35
02-11-2015, 06:51 PM
Probably a couple million max for the right team. No I wouldn't give him fmvp for that one shot per game, another player was likely way way more important in the team even being in that position.

Cal827
02-12-2015, 01:56 AM
Robert Horry is disappointed with the messages of this thread lol

Redrum187
02-12-2015, 01:24 PM
Robert Horry is disappointed with the messages of this thread lol

That is hilarious! lol

valade16
02-12-2015, 01:48 PM
I was having a conversation with a friend about the possibility of a player who made every single shot he ever takes, regardless of the amount of defenders draped on him or where he was on the court when he took the shot. He also only needs 0.3 seconds to get his shot off from any location on the court. The catch is, he will only shoot once per game for the team, and refuses to play after he takes his shot.

As ridiculous as that sounds, knowing he is 100% from any place on the floor and he won't play more than 24 seconds per game (or take more than one shot), if you were an NBA GM, what is the max contract you'd be willing to offer him? Explain.

Secondary question: Lets say his team made the NBA Finals but they lost their first 3 games by 2 points (they never played him). For the next 4 games, his team was down by 2 points again with 0.3 seconds left in the 4th quarter, no time-outs to advance the ball, but they decided to play him. He takes the shot from the opponent's free throw line, making the long 3 point shot to win the game (for games 4,5,6, and 7). Does he deserve to be FMVP? Why or why not?

I think I would pay vastly more for him than the league minimum but it's tough to say exactly how much.

Here's the thing. If you're at the end of a close game he's an auto win. How many games come down to at some point being up/down by 1-3 points with 1:00 or less left? Imagine every time that scenario comes up you just add 3 points. you would win a significant amount more of those games than most others.

Using my team the Blazers as an example. They are currently 36-17 however they've lost 1 game by a one point, and lost another in OT. Imagine those are now wins. Then they've lost 4 games by 4 points. If they won at least 2 of those because of his legendary shooting that's a 4 game swing already.

They'd be 40-13 and in 2nd place behind the Warriors instead of in 3rd place. And that isn't even counting all the games where they lost by 5+ but the game was within a couple of points in the last minute.

Bottom line, auto-winning a close game is a very valuable skill.

Redrum187
02-12-2015, 02:10 PM
I think I would pay vastly more for him than the league minimum but it's tough to say exactly how much.

Here's the thing. If you're at the end of a close game he's an auto win. How many games come down to at some point being up/down by 1-3 points with 1:00 or less left? Imagine every time that scenario comes up you just add 3 points. you would win a significant amount more of those games than most others.

Using my team the Blazers as an example. They are currently 36-17 however they've lost 1 game by a one point, and lost another in OT. Imagine those are now wins. Then they've lost 4 games by 4 points. If they won at least 2 of those because of his legendary shooting that's a 4 game swing already.

They'd be 40-13 and in 2nd place behind the Warriors instead of in 3rd place. And that isn't even counting all the games where they lost by 5+ but the game was within a couple of points in the last minute.

Bottom line, auto-winning a close game is a very valuable skill.

See...I thought so too. People offering him 1 or 2 mil seems silly to me. It's not just with the Trailblazers either! The Suns would be about 5th place if they had a guy like this on their roster. They lose so many close games by a couple points.

Imagine if the Spurs signed him for as cheap as people are saying here. They would be even more stacked.

I think I'd pay him about 6 million. That is a lot of money, but for the security blanket he provides in close games, it's definitely worth it. I wouldn't be surprised if some teams paid more.