No results found for ""

Type at least 3 characters to search

Upgrade Your Fandom

Join the ultimate Denver Nuggets Community!

Understanding the Nuggets’ next big contracts as a percentage of the salary cap

Joel Rush
Joel Rush
June 26, 2017
Understanding the Nuggets’ next big contracts as a percentage of the salary cap

Author

Joel Rush avatar
Joel Rush

Share this post

Comments

Leave a comment

0 Comments (1 conversation)

June 28, 2017

I appreciate all the work you clearly put in to this article, but it seems like you got bogged down in the minutia of comparables and what is “fair” rather than the common sense question of whether these contracts are/were good or bad for that team. The goal is winning consistently not paying or being paid a perceived fair value. I think we all know Mason Plumlee isn’t the player his win shares point to for example, he was being carried by his backcourt in Portland without any doubt whatsoever. Statistics rarely tell an entire story, and these salary comparables really need to have some qualifiers to put them into context. Such as: All Star appearances, playoff appearances, and whether or not the win shares truly represent a player’s worth to a team. In essence, a guy needs to be an All Star or a major contributor on a playoff team or project to being one, i.e. not easily replaceable, for a contract eating up 20-25+% of a team’s cap to be considered a good contract. This is why there’s no way I can see Gallinari getting 20+ million dollars over the life of his next deal, unless it’s a team that has no hope of winning anything remotely important. He’s not an All Star, has averaged far fewer than 82 games per season, and hasn’t ever played well in the playoffs in his career. With that in mind you’d have to say it’d be crazy to pay him 23.5 million per annum, so, good luck with getting 20 plus mil from anyone because it just isn’t going to happen on a good team, and if it does, the ceiling for that good team will be capped by said contract. While that may seem like fair value, it’s far less important than good value, which is what teams who want to win need to construct their rosters with. I mean I hate to say it, but this is sort of a pointless article when it comes to the intangible art of team building, it fails to factor in basically every important criteria, and form a “fair” pay scale from a few out of context pieces of information.

Replying to

June 28, 2017

Maybe this comes off as harsh, but bottomline is the most efficient way of figuring out values is letting the market decide. Not just in terms of dollars though, also in terms of results. Which, is really the name of the game, not dollar amount, but dollars to wins produced ratio per player. I understand that’s what you’re trying to get at here. Unfortunately win shares is still an incomplete stat, win share per 48 is better I think, but still likely hides a lot of aspects of a team dynamic and that’s what made me frustrated with this piece. Finally, I’d like to reiterate, no building team should be looking at “fair” value, if the Nuggets want to win, they must get good value on as many players as possible up until the time they can compete for a championship. At which point you pay whatever is necessary to stay at the top. That time is not yet, so if Gallinari wants 20 plus million dollars per, then goodbye Gallo, it’s been fun.

DNVR Flag

Scroll for next article