Change of Address for Kevin Love - How About Causeway Street?
- Thread starter the1andonly3003
- Start date
- Status
The key word in your post is "eligible". IMHO he's not worth it, and if he gets the 5 year 106M deal (assuming today's cap), I hope it's not with the Celtics.
I understand that in a sign and trade or as a free agent signing with a new team he's "eligible" for less. But I hope he doesn't get the 4 year 86M from the Celtics either.
No, it's really not. Because your opinion, or my opinion, isn't going to matter.Brickowski said:
If he wants the max, he's going to get it.
Even if he takes less to help out his new team, he can still get an extra year and bigger raises if it's with his current team over signing somewhere as a FA.
Poor baby, he might have to settle for the chump change that Dwight Howard got (another ridiculous overpay if you ask me). Love isn't worth more that $15M per year (a little more than he's making now). What has he done? He hasn't won squat. Just because someone else might be willing to pay the max, that doesn't mean that I want the team that I root for to pay it.
Devizier said:
The Spurs were like two plays away from being the first.
Of course, I understand that the Spurs have been incredibly good in identifying talent and has team-friendly contracts, so maybe the Spurs can't be emulated.
actually Kobe can only get that because of a loophole for guys who were making more than the max when they added it. The 10+ year max is only about 20 right now. However you get at least 105% of your previous year, so since Kobe had a huge deal he got the 105% of it plus the yearly raises.Devizier said:
The odds of getting 3 players like Duncan/Parker/Ginobli to agree to contracts which combine for 29M is pretty unlikely. GInobli makes 7M, and Duncan 10. Parker 12.5. All three are definitely taking well less than what they would have gotten elsewhere.wade boggs chicken dinner said:
Among current players, LeBron and Durant. There are a few guys who are close, e.g. CP3, and players like Kobe and KG used to be worth it, but not any more. There are also guys who are still cost controlled who will be worth maximum deals, e.g. Anthony Davis.
When you have 3 players making $15M or more, it is very difficult to put together an 8 man rotation that can contend for a championship-- unless one of them is LeBron or Durant. Why pay all that $$$ to one or two players to be a bridesmaid?
Reading this thread makes me think Brick is too picky, but then it reminds me how stupid the max is.
Sure, but look at the salary structures of the 4 teams left standing. No team has a 20M player. Miami has three 19M players, but (a) one of them is LeBron, and (b) guys like Battier, Anderson and Allen are playing for below market salaries. Even so, they are 9M over the tax line.
OKC has Durant making slightly under 20M and Westbrook at 15.7M. No other player on any of the four top teams makes as much as $15M, and the one who is close (Hibbert) is overpaid IMHO.
It seems to me that an optimal structure would be 3-4 guys making between 12-15M plus another 3-4 cost controlled guys, i.e. young players on their rookie deals or veterans willing to play for less. The idea is to stay just under the tax line, but if you go over, it can't be by much unless you are a Russian tycoon.
Brickowski said:
Miami is a special case, in that each player left a prorated $10 million ($15M if you consider their contracts to be six-year deals) on the table (in total compensation) to fit essentially three max-salaried players under the cap. This was necessary because James and Bosh had to be signed as free agents, thus forcing the Heat to work under the harder limits of the cap and not the softer overhead of the luxury tax. Either way, these guys are essentially max contract players.
Durant and Westbrook are both max-extension players. Service time and the salary cap are what prevent them from being $20M guys.
Paul George signed a max extension last year, and Hibbert signed a maximum contract when the Blazers offered him one in RFA (the Pacers matched). Again, service time dictates what that maximum salary can be.
The Spurs are the one team that fits the non-max criteria. I think their situation is probably analogous to what the Celtics had in the post-prime big three era, getting guys like Garnett and Pierce to stick around for less money and trying to build a team around them. The Spurs drafted a little better than Ainge did in that period, and nailed their midlevel signings and trades. It's worth keeping in mind that the post-prime Celtics didn't win any titles, though they came close at times, and the current iteration of the Spurs haven't won a title (yet). The last Spurs title came on the back of max-contract Tim Duncan.
And here is the SI.com version of what it would take:
Timberwolves acquire: Jared Sullinger, Brandon Bass, Keith Bogans, Boston’s 2014 first-round pick (No. 6) and Brooklyn’s 2016 first-round pick
Celtics acquire: Kevin Love and Alexey Shved
Timberwolves acquire: Jared Sullinger, Brandon Bass, Keith Bogans, Boston’s 2014 first-round pick (No. 6) and Brooklyn’s 2016 first-round pick
Celtics acquire: Kevin Love and Alexey Shved
If were analyzing giving Love the max from a Celtics perspective then you really have to think about 2 things - those Nets picks and an alternative option. Maybe Love is slightly overpaid at the max but with the infusion of young, cheap talent the Celts will be receiving from the Nets we could absorb that overpay especially considering the Celts are willing to go over the tax threshold when they have a contending team. Then there is the alternative, maybe we could get a better max player who would be less overpaid at that salary but the chances of that are unlikely. Another alternative is to find a guy in the $15M range to give a deal like that to, but the players that sign those deals are just as overpaid as Love would be at the max.
I really dont see the concern around giving him the max, because you can still add another max centerpiece (if you can acquire one) with Love on the books. It becomes a different conversation if we are thinking we should give Love and Rondo the max, then I dont see how you build a team with any depth while adding a 3rd max guy there. If you think Love is the centerpiece of a contender then I think we are off base because I dont think he has that level of talent. But even though I know it will be a slight overpay, putting aside the compensation we would have to send over to get Love, I cant envision a better scenario for the Celts to give the max to, I just dont see it. So it gets us closer to our goal of a title which is a good thing.
I really dont see the concern around giving him the max, because you can still add another max centerpiece (if you can acquire one) with Love on the books. It becomes a different conversation if we are thinking we should give Love and Rondo the max, then I dont see how you build a team with any depth while adding a 3rd max guy there. If you think Love is the centerpiece of a contender then I think we are off base because I dont think he has that level of talent. But even though I know it will be a slight overpay, putting aside the compensation we would have to send over to get Love, I cant envision a better scenario for the Celts to give the max to, I just dont see it. So it gets us closer to our goal of a title which is a good thing.
I think the Celtics do that in a cocaine heartbeat if Love would resign. I'm not sure the TImberwolves can do better, either.E5 Yaz said:
ivanvamp said:
I think the biggest factor is the Lakers' cap situation, which currently looks favorable (to the Lakers). If they have room to sign him at max or near-max, Celts have a hard sell to make and can't just throw more money at him. Ainge might know what he's doing by not forcing a re-sign, but it would make me nervous.
If this trade somehow comes to fruition, I will change my handle to "Alexey Shved's Sweaty Mask".
ivanvamp said:
100%. Kevin Love isn't going to accept a trade to a team that he won't sign with longterm.
He doesn't have a no trade. If some team wants to pay for a one-year rental, it can. IMHO the issue should be framed as, "Few if any teams will be willing to offer significant value for Love if he has not promised to re-sign there long-term."
And if I'm giving up a second first round pick, I want it to be the Rivers pick, not a Nets pick or #17 this year. Next year's draft doesn't look nearly as strong. There's the big kid Okafor from Chicago who will spend a year at Duke, but then the talent level drops off (although I do like Montrezl Harrell).
Brickowski said:
Stating that Love isn't "worth" a max contract isn't relevant. The max contract rules lead some players to get less than they are worth (LeBron should be making 40 million) and others to get too much (see Stoudemire, Amar'e).
Love will absolutely get full value, and in a world where Eric Gordon is a max guy the term "worth" is almost meaningless.
As for the Celts, if Rondo had come back strong this year, and he could be our borderline all-star/value contract/third option, I'd be all for Love. You get Love, a wing who can create his own shot, and good Rondo you can make a run in the East.
But we may never see Good Rondo again. And that wing should have been Jeff Green. Shoulda.
Bernie Carbohydrate said:
Why dont you think we see Good Rondo again? Are you concerned about him physically being what he was again, or that he can play with the same style/intensity as when he was winning with the Big3?
IMHO Ainge is right when he says that Rondo will have a very good year-- at least statistically. He's playing for his next contract. Whether all of those double doubles and triple doubles will translate into wins remains to be seen.
The template for a Kevin Love team should be the 2011 Dallas Mavericks. Love isn't quite as complete an offensive player as Dirk was in 2011, but he's a better passer and rebounder. The Mavs hid Dirk's defensive issues with Chandler at center, they had a heady point guard who could get Dirk the ball where he needed it in Kidd, and a guard who wasn't a superstar but could create his own shot in JET. That core was surrounded by a few glue guys/role players/shooters - 32 year old Shawn Marion, Caron Butler, Peja, etc.
Rondo/Green/Love/Asik is a pretty decent facsimile of Kidd/Marion/Dirk/Chandler. Not as good, certainly, but some similarities in terms of strengths, weaknesses and usage. The obvious thing they'd be missing is the Terry piece, which is a big issue. But I think that core for the Celtics would be closer to contention than some people are giving them credit for.
Rondo/Green/Love/Asik is a pretty decent facsimile of Kidd/Marion/Dirk/Chandler. Not as good, certainly, but some similarities in terms of strengths, weaknesses and usage. The obvious thing they'd be missing is the Terry piece, which is a big issue. But I think that core for the Celtics would be closer to contention than some people are giving them credit for.
except he won't be at 17 and a Love trade without the #6 pick is highly unlikely.RedOctober3829 said:
I think part of Brick's problem is he is judging a max contract to be the value of the very best player's in the NBA (Durant, Lebron). It is not. Durant and Lebron are worth $30+ million a year in the current cap environment, but no one is allowed to pay them that much. Once you realize that, it's much easier to understand why a guy like Love, even though he is not close to the player Lebron is, is still easily worth a max contract. The debate about Love's ability is basically one between people who think he's a borderline top 5 player and those who think he's somewhere in the 10-20 range. Even on the low end, that makes him a player who is worth a max contract (although there may not be enough excess value on the low end to make it also worth giving up assets for him in addition to the contract).
I don't know if I'd be willing to pull the trigger on the trade mentioned above. But, if you take Shved and the Nets pick out of it, I'd pull the trigger and I think it remains a fair offer. I say this as someone who's generally not a believer in Love.
It's also worth noting that there is a decent chance Pierce could be convinced to come back to Boston to play on a Rondo/Bradley/Love/Asik team (I assume Green would be gone in the trade for Asik). Pierce plus a rookie wing drafted at 17 would make that roster a fun and competitive team that would be one major piece from being a true contender. This isn't my preferred direction for the franchise, but it's not one I'd be upset by either.
I don't know if I'd be willing to pull the trigger on the trade mentioned above. But, if you take Shved and the Nets pick out of it, I'd pull the trigger and I think it remains a fair offer. I say this as someone who's generally not a believer in Love.
It's also worth noting that there is a decent chance Pierce could be convinced to come back to Boston to play on a Rondo/Bradley/Love/Asik team (I assume Green would be gone in the trade for Asik). Pierce plus a rookie wing drafted at 17 would make that roster a fun and competitive team that would be one major piece from being a true contender. This isn't my preferred direction for the franchise, but it's not one I'd be upset by either.
CreightonGubanich said:
I guess this depends on what your goals are, if its to win titles or collect a lot of regular season games but.... the Mavericks used this model of building around Dirk with complimentary pieces for his entire tenure there, and it has only 'worked' IMO twice in 05/06 when they made the Finals and lost and their title. Other than that the furthest they got was the 2nd round of the playoffs and they only did that 4 out of 12 years (last 14 minus 2 finals appearances). They never gave Dirk a great sidekick and that coupled with their inability to defend was always the fatal flaw for that team. I know they were interesting to watch every year but it would drive me bonkers to watch a team I knew was fatally flawed from the start have that model year after year.
Love cant carry a team offensively like Dirk can, so we really would need a 2nd guy who could do just that, if we had Pierce in his prime that would be a duo that would be pretty interesting. But every great team really needs a great scorer for the most part or you need a really unique combination of talent that can make it work like what the Spurs have with no real elite scorer (but they also have amazing defense).
wutang112878 said:
The former. He's a small guy who gets his points off driving into the paint, and that's a good way to get banged up. His game depends on quickness, and he's coming off an injury that can sap quickness. He hid his lack of a jumper with his crazy ball fakes and amazing first step, but his 2014 cameo didn't prove he's got that first step back and without that speed the ball fakes won't fool so many defenders.
His intelligence and court vision are injury-proof, and I'm not hung up on his attitude like some of his critics are, and maybe he comes all the way back (ACL isn't a career ender anymore), but to me his game requires peak conditioning and unusual athleticism. His intensity will come back when he has something to play for, but the speed may be gone forever.
I'd be happy to take away the cap and the luxury tax and let teams pay everyone the max. It's not my money. But in a constrained system where you have a $60M cap and a $70M luxury tax threshold, plus a luxury tax that is extraordinarily more painful than under the previous CBA, you shouldn't offer the max to a player who isn't capable of leading you into at least the conference finals. It takes 7-8 good players to win a championship, not two or even three. If you give 60% or more of your cap to only two players, they had better be damned good, or you aren't going anywhere unless you are lucky enough to have 2-3 all stars still on rookie deals. I happen to believe that Love isn't good enough given what their roster would look like after trading for him. If the C's could add Love to a roster that already had Mutombo in his prime and Pierce in his prime, I'd be all for it. But they don't. IMHO it's more important to use the first round picks wisely and build your cost-controlled talent level a little more instead of trading away your first round picks for an expensive piece like Love, who would make the team just mediocre instead of bad.
wutang112878 said:
Love was the 4th best scorer in the NBA this year, in terms of total points. He was also the 4th best scorer in the NBA in 2011/2012, his next most recent healthy season. He's exactly the sort of player that can carry a team offensively like Dirk did.
Bernie Carbohydrate said:
I guess it depends on how and what he uses to rehab. In a world where Wes Welker, whose game is predicated on exactly the same things, comes back from an ACL in less than a calendar year, then I think Rondo should be able to at least get back to be what he was before. I do agree on the longevity piece, if he could shoot losing his speed wouldnt be such a crushing blow, but its going to affect his game immensely. But I do think he should have 3 great seasons left in him, I mean he's 27. He didnt need the speed but Pierce had already taken a pounding by 30 when the Big3 trade went down and he still looked the part of a great player for a few more years.
JakeRae said:
Besides the totals the hows are important as it pertains to carrying a team. 7.5 of Loves 25.9 PPG comes from 3s and when you really need a bucket in the 4th you cant just up and demand that your PF go create one of those shots by himself. With Dirk he always had the back them down a bit, then hit a fade away jumper or the quirky fake like I am driving, get you just slightly off balance and pull up for a jumper move. Pierce had all his herky jerky moves, and with say Ray you knew you could always run picks to get him a good shot, etc. Now maybe I havent watched enough of Love, but if you take away the 3s what unique skill is he going to individually bring to the table to get your team a bucket when you absolutely need it?
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEnSiBWvRmU[/media]wutang112878 said:
He's got a pretty full spectrum of offensive moves.
Bill Simmons column today where he lays out Love trade possibilities is Simmons in a microcosm.
A bunch of really good understanding of where teams are and what they might want.
A couple ridiculous never going to happen things.
A terrible attention to detail and failure to understand how rules apply. (Most notably his Boston offer which is impossible due to the Stepian rule. Not exactly arcane knowledge.)
A bunch of really good understanding of where teams are and what they might want.
A couple ridiculous never going to happen things.
A terrible attention to detail and failure to understand how rules apply. (Most notably his Boston offer which is impossible due to the Stepian rule. Not exactly arcane knowledge.)
JakeRae said:
Thanks for posting that it highlights the issue I was having see Love for what he is. I was thinking of a player in the mold of a traditional PF who you would dump the ball to downlow and he would go operate, kind of like Elton Brand who basically could just operate downlow and no place else on the court. Whereas Love is really just a more versatile quick PF, and the mismatch he creates is that his combination of agility and range makes him a tough guard for a PF.
Also, now I want him just because it dawned on me that he shoots exactly like Jimmy Chitwood
I dunno. Full recovery from an ACL is close to 100%. What is gone forever is having 3 of the games Top-25 all time leading scorers spreading the floor so nobody pays attention to you.Bernie Carbohydrate said:
Devizier said:
Yes that and the put the ball above your shoulder as high as possible and have the majority of your upward motion be a wrist flick to launch it. And both of them hold their follow through for just a second after the release, and occasionally have their left hand fly out to the side after the ball is released. Its really weird that its almost a carbon copy.
wutang112878 said:
In addition, a lot of people think of Love as a glorified stretch-four, but he's much more athletic than that. He can score from pretty much anywhere on the floor. He can face up and take slower defenders off the dribble, he can back down smaller guys in the post, and he's a terrific three point shooter who's not just a spot-up guy. I think he's more athletic than Nowitzki, but he doesn't have a single go-to move that's as effective as Dirk's stepback. I think he can definitely carry an offense. He's a perfect pick-and-roll player, a guy who draws so much defensive attention out to the three point line that he opens up a lot of space for other guys. Bradley would have a field day with backdoor cuts if he played with Love.
Brickowski said:
Your overall point regarding the new CBA is a very good one. But there a couple of other considerations that alter the calculus for me. First, the cap is going up and will almost certainly will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The new TV deal should be massive given the premium paid for live content by networks. So locking in max players now, should actually leave a team with cap flexibility in the next three or four years as the cap rises and the value of max contracts goes up.
Setting aside the cap increase, there a basically three avenues to add talent to a top heavy team: 1) get ring chasing veterans to come for a discount, 2) nail your late first round picks and 3) find value on the NBA scrap heap. A Celtics team built around Love with have those (not great) options, plus one more: all of those juicy Nets picks.
Cellar-Door said:
Couldn't they step around the Stepian Rule (sorry for the pun) by making their own 2014 pick, then trading the chosen player and the remaining picks including their own 2015. I thought it was just consecutive future picks that were prohibited, and this "player I just chose plus future pick" was legit? If the Celtics had traded their 2016 pick already then they'd be afoul if the rule for sure.
CreightonGubanich said:
I wish I watched more of Minnesota to get an idea of how teams guarded him. I have to imagine teams at least tried to guard him with a big SF, but I wonder if that was quickly scrapped because he abused the guy in the post. And if you play small ball with him at Center, if you can get away with him guarding the opposing center, then he really must go to town offensively if he faces up against his man.
I'm really warming up to the idea of trading for him. Having a 4 you can play a pick and roll with who can actually roll to the hoop or drive after receiving the pass after the pick is really, really something that is very rare to find. Then if you have him at the 3pt line dropping it down to a SF to work in the post, the opponent cant sag to stop the pass because Love will just take an easy 3, and if they try to double from the weak side then Love is skilled enough to make a crisp pass to get an easy shot or lead to another quick pass to get an easy shot. I'm also starting to realize that his on/off offensive numbers are more legit than I thought. I thought that had a large part to do with the fact that their bench sucked so badly, but the more I think about it the more I realize that he really, really makes this easier for his teammates because he is such a mismatch nightmare.
While I basically agree with the latter half of this (most of Rondo's troubles are from not being surrounded by HOFers), why do we think full recovery from an ACL is close to 100%?HomeRunBaker said:
I haven't looked at it scientifically but it's a fairly common surgery now and I'm struggling to think of any player recently who hasn't returned successfully aside from Rose. Many continued on their projected path and actually improved quite a bit once their 18-24 month window ended. Al Jefferson, Tony Allen, Jamal Crawford, Kyle Lowry, etc.bowiac said:
Who are the players you feel didn't fully recover from an ACL?
- Status