The Official 'Time For Someone To Apologize' Thread

[Rondo9]

while we're here though......

"The Lakers are looking to create “significantly more cap space” by unloading contracts, Yahoo! Sports' Adrian Wojnarowski reports. League executives believe the Lakers want to sign both of the top two big men on the market—LaMarcus Aldridge and DeAndre Jordan—Wojnarowski adds. Kobe Bryant is expected to attend the Lakers' meeting with Aldridge, USA Today's Sam Amick reports. Aldridge will reportedly meet with seven teams Tuesday night in Los Angeles after 9 p.m. PT, beginning with the Rockets and the Lakers." - si.com

http://www.si.com/nba/2015/07/01/nba-free-agency-live-blog-updates-rumors-buzz-news


lets just fleece our rivals man?  let them chase the dream by landing LaMarcus and whomever, why don't we extend ourselves by saying we'll take Nick Young's contract, just give us a couple unprotected 1sts to get it done.  would LOVE that move

I don't think the Lakers have many draft picks (if any at all.) and no thanks on Swaggy P.

[sawick48]

while we're here though......

"The Lakers are looking to create “significantly more cap space” by unloading contracts, Yahoo! Sports' Adrian Wojnarowski reports. League executives believe the Lakers want to sign both of the top two big men on the market—LaMarcus Aldridge and DeAndre Jordan—Wojnarowski adds. Kobe Bryant is expected to attend the Lakers' meeting with Aldridge, USA Today's Sam Amick reports. Aldridge will reportedly meet with seven teams Tuesday night in Los Angeles after 9 p.m. PT, beginning with the Rockets and the Lakers." - si.com

http://www.si.com/nba/2015/07/01/nba-free-agency-live-blog-updates-rumors-buzz-news


lets just fleece our rivals man?  let them chase the dream by landing LaMarcus and whomever, why don't we extend ourselves by saying we'll take Nick Young's contract, just give us a couple unprotected 1sts to get it done.  would LOVE that move

I don't think the Lakers have many draft picks (if any at all.) and no thanks on Swaggy P.

that's the genius.  i think the first pick would be in like 2020. ya it's a ways out but shoot, anyone the Lakers signed this offsesason would be in their late 30s by that time anyway. fine with me. and we'd cut P obviously. though he would be the source of some moments of high comedy.

[crimson_stallion]

Leading the league in points per possession doesn't qualify him for a max contract?  Especially for a 22 year old who averaged over 17 points per game?  Has position versatility and is known as the hardest worker his teammates have ever seen?

http://www.basketballanalyticsbook.com/2015/05/06/the-nbas-most-underrated-player/

I've mentioned this before, but that link / article really needs to be taken with a grain of salt. 
Much of what's in that link is meaningless and uses cherry picked stats to try to sell an opinion. 

Very little in there actually holds much merit. 

Also it doesn't say anything about him leading the league in points per possession.  It says he lead the league in points per possession on post up plays.  Overall, he's really not that efficient a scorer.

To put it into perspective, Harris averaged 17.1 points on 14.4 field goal attempts.  That's 1.229 Points Per FGA.

Kelly Olynyk averaged 10.3 points on 8.3 field goal attempts.  That's 1.241 points per FGA. 

To give you an idea on how that stacks up against other guys in the league, our veyr own Isaiah Thomas averaged 19.0 points on 13.6 field goal attempts, which equates to 1.397 points per FGA. 

Paul Pierce for his career averaged 20.7 points on 15.2 field goal attempts - an average of 1.36 points per FGA.

As a general rule, you can look at PTS/FGA something like this:

[a.] < 1.2 = Poor efficiency
[b.] 1.2 - 1.6 = Below average efficiency
[c.] 1.6 - 2.2 =Average efficiency
[d.] 2.4 - 3.0 = Above average efficiency
[e.] 3.0 - 3.6 = Good efficiency
[f.] 3.6 - 4.2 = Excellent efficiency
[g.] > 4.2 = Elite efficiency

Tobias Harris is in category B along with Kevin Garnett.

Remember this is NOT a measure of how capable a scorer somebody is - it's a measure of how  efficient a scorer is.  How many shots do you need in order to get your points.

Of course this stat favors guys who:
1) Get a lot of their points from three point shots (a bonus point for every 3PT made)
b) Get a long of their points from the foul line (a bonus point for every FT made)
c) Shoot high percentages from the field (more FGM relative to FGA)

KG didn't get to the line much and rarely took threes, but he still has an above average efficiency (if not a great one) simply because he was always up around the 50% FG mark. 

Isaiah Thomas has a crazy high number because:
1) He takes, and makes, a lot of threes at a solid percentage (career 36.3%)
2) He gets to the line a lot (48.1% FTR) and makes them at a high percentage (career 86% FT)
3) He shoots a decent percentage on 2PT shots (career 48.8%)

Harris is definitely a reasonably efficient scorer, but he's by no means an amazingly efficient one. 

This is because:

a) He make an average number of threes (1.3 3PM Per 36 minutes) at a decent but not elite percentage (36.5%)

b) He doesn't get to the line that well (25.8% FTR) and shoots a decent but not elite percentage (78%)

c) He shot a decent but not great percentage on 2PT (50%)

[knuckleballer]

Leading the league in points per possession doesn't qualify him for a max contract?  Especially for a 22 year old who averaged over 17 points per game?  Has position versatility and is known as the hardest worker his teammates have ever seen?

http://www.basketballanalyticsbook.com/2015/05/06/the-nbas-most-underrated-player/

I've mentioned this before, but that link / article really needs to be taken with a grain of salt. 
Much of what's in that link is meaningless and uses cherry picked stats to try to sell an opinion. 

Very little in there actually holds much merit. 

Also it doesn't say anything about him leading the league in points per possession.  It says he lead the league in points per possession on post up plays.  Overall, he's really not that efficient a scorer.

To put it into perspective, Harris averaged 17.1 points on 14.4 field goal attempts.  That's 1.229 Points Per FGA.

Kelly Olynyk averaged 10.3 points on 8.3 field goal attempts.  That's 1.241 points per FGA. 

To give you an idea on how that stacks up against other guys in the league, our veyr own Isaiah Thomas averaged 19.0 points on 13.6 field goal attempts, which equates to 1.397 points per FGA. 

Paul Pierce for his career averaged 20.7 points on 15.2 field goal attempts - an average of 1.36 points per FGA.

As a general rule, you can look at PTS/FGA something like this:

[a.] < 1.2 = Poor efficiency
[b.] 1.2 - 1.6 = Below average efficiency
[c.] 1.6 - 2.2 =Average efficiency
[d.] 2.4 - 3.0 = Above average efficiency
[e.] 3.0 - 3.6 = Good efficiency
[f.] 3.6 - 4.2 = Excellent efficiency
[g.] > 4.2 = Elite efficiency

Tobias Harris is in category B along with Kevin Garnett.

Remember this is NOT a measure of how capable a scorer somebody is - it's a measure of how  efficient a scorer is.  How many shots do you need in order to get your points.

Of course this stat favors guys who:
1) Get a lot of their points from three point shots (a bonus point for every 3PT made)
b) Get a long of their points from the foul line (a bonus point for every FT made)
c) Shoot high percentages from the field (more FGM relative to FGA)

KG didn't get to the line much and rarely took threes, but he still has an above average efficiency (if not a great one) simply because he was always up around the 50% FG mark. 

Isaiah Thomas has a crazy high number because:
1) He takes, and makes, a lot of threes at a solid percentage (career 36.3%)
2) He gets to the line a lot (48.1% FTR) and makes them at a high percentage (career 86% FT)
3) He shoots a decent percentage on 2PT shots (career 48.8%)

Harris is definitely a reasonably efficient scorer, but he's by no means an amazingly efficient one.

You make good points about him, but considering he's 22, he's improving, he plays a position of need, and the fact the cap is shooting up so much next year, I'll be thrilled to lock him up long term at about $15 mil per.

[crimson_stallion]

Leading the league in points per possession doesn't qualify him for a max contract?  Especially for a 22 year old who averaged over 17 points per game?  Has position versatility and is known as the hardest worker his teammates have ever seen?

http://www.basketballanalyticsbook.com/2015/05/06/the-nbas-most-underrated-player/

I've mentioned this before, but that link / article really needs to be taken with a grain of salt. 
Much of what's in that link is meaningless and uses cherry picked stats to try to sell an opinion. 

Very little in there actually holds much merit. 

Also it doesn't say anything about him leading the league in points per possession.  It says he lead the league in points per possession on post up plays.  Overall, he's really not that efficient a scorer.

To put it into perspective, Harris averaged 17.1 points on 14.4 field goal attempts.  That's 1.229 Points Per FGA.

Kelly Olynyk averaged 10.3 points on 8.3 field goal attempts.  That's 1.241 points per FGA. 

To give you an idea on how that stacks up against other guys in the league, our veyr own Isaiah Thomas averaged 19.0 points on 13.6 field goal attempts, which equates to 1.397 points per FGA. 

Paul Pierce for his career averaged 20.7 points on 15.2 field goal attempts - an average of 1.36 points per FGA.

As a general rule, you can look at PTS/FGA something like this:

[a.] < 1.2 = Poor efficiency
[b.] 1.2 - 1.6 = Below average efficiency
[c.] 1.6 - 2.2 =Average efficiency
[d.] 2.4 - 3.0 = Above average efficiency
[e.] 3.0 - 3.6 = Good efficiency
[f.] 3.6 - 4.2 = Excellent efficiency
[g.] > 4.2 = Elite efficiency

Tobias Harris is in category B along with Kevin Garnett.

Remember this is NOT a measure of how capable a scorer somebody is - it's a measure of how  efficient a scorer is.  How many shots do you need in order to get your points.

Of course this stat favors guys who:
1) Get a lot of their points from three point shots (a bonus point for every 3PT made)
b) Get a long of their points from the foul line (a bonus point for every FT made)
c) Shoot high percentages from the field (more FGM relative to FGA)

KG didn't get to the line much and rarely took threes, but he still has an above average efficiency (if not a great one) simply because he was always up around the 50% FG mark. 

Isaiah Thomas has a crazy high number because:
1) He takes, and makes, a lot of threes at a solid percentage (career 36.3%)
2) He gets to the line a lot (48.1% FTR) and makes them at a high percentage (career 86% FT)
3) He shoots a decent percentage on 2PT shots (career 48.8%)

Harris is definitely a reasonably efficient scorer, but he's by no means an amazingly efficient one.

You make good points about him, but considering he's 22, he's improving, he plays a position of need, and the fact the cap is shooting up so much next year, I'll be thrilled to lock him up long term at about $15 mil per.

I won't delve too far into this (after the last Harris thread) but I'll just say that I'd be hessitant.

I think he's a fair signing at around $9M - $11M a year.  Not a bargain at that price, but fair value and worth the gamble.  Any higher than that I just don't think he's worth it. 

He's just not close to a max contract guy right now, and anything he earns above that $9M - $11M mark is just a pure gamble on upside.  Personally, I wouldn't take that gamble on a long term deal because I feel that's getting into Charlie Villenueva territory. 

Orlando seemingly feel the same way too if the rumors (about not not being willing to match deals above $11m) are true.

But alas, many people obviously believe otherwise, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see!  I won't hate life, boycott the Celtics and call for Ainge to get fired if he DID sign Harris to a max deal...but I wouldn't be thrilled about it.

[knuckleballer]

Leading the league in points per possession doesn't qualify him for a max contract?  Especially for a 22 year old who averaged over 17 points per game?  Has position versatility and is known as the hardest worker his teammates have ever seen?

http://www.basketballanalyticsbook.com/2015/05/06/the-nbas-most-underrated-player/

I've mentioned this before, but that link / article really needs to be taken with a grain of salt. 
Much of what's in that link is meaningless and uses cherry picked stats to try to sell an opinion. 

Very little in there actually holds much merit. 

Also it doesn't say anything about him leading the league in points per possession.  It says he lead the league in points per possession on post up plays.  Overall, he's really not that efficient a scorer.

To put it into perspective, Harris averaged 17.1 points on 14.4 field goal attempts.  That's 1.229 Points Per FGA.

Kelly Olynyk averaged 10.3 points on 8.3 field goal attempts.  That's 1.241 points per FGA. 

To give you an idea on how that stacks up against other guys in the league, our veyr own Isaiah Thomas averaged 19.0 points on 13.6 field goal attempts, which equates to 1.397 points per FGA. 

Paul Pierce for his career averaged 20.7 points on 15.2 field goal attempts - an average of 1.36 points per FGA.

As a general rule, you can look at PTS/FGA something like this:

[a.] < 1.2 = Poor efficiency
[b.] 1.2 - 1.6 = Below average efficiency
[c.] 1.6 - 2.2 =Average efficiency
[d.] 2.4 - 3.0 = Above average efficiency
[e.] 3.0 - 3.6 = Good efficiency
[f.] 3.6 - 4.2 = Excellent efficiency
[g.] > 4.2 = Elite efficiency

Tobias Harris is in category B along with Kevin Garnett.

Remember this is NOT a measure of how capable a scorer somebody is - it's a measure of how  efficient a scorer is.  How many shots do you need in order to get your points.

Of course this stat favors guys who:
1) Get a lot of their points from three point shots (a bonus point for every 3PT made)
b) Get a long of their points from the foul line (a bonus point for every FT made)
c) Shoot high percentages from the field (more FGM relative to FGA)

KG didn't get to the line much and rarely took threes, but he still has an above average efficiency (if not a great one) simply because he was always up around the 50% FG mark. 

Isaiah Thomas has a crazy high number because:
1) He takes, and makes, a lot of threes at a solid percentage (career 36.3%)
2) He gets to the line a lot (48.1% FTR) and makes them at a high percentage (career 86% FT)
3) He shoots a decent percentage on 2PT shots (career 48.8%)

Harris is definitely a reasonably efficient scorer, but he's by no means an amazingly efficient one.

You make good points about him, but considering he's 22, he's improving, he plays a position of need, and the fact the cap is shooting up so much next year, I'll be thrilled to lock him up long term at about $15 mil per.

I won't delve too far into this (after the last Harris thread) but I'll just say that I'd be hessitant.

I think he's a fair signing at around $9M - $11M a year.  Not a bargain at that price, but fair value and worth the gamble.  Any higher than that I just don't think he's worth it. 

He's just not close to a max contract guy right now, and anything he earns above that $9M - $11M mark is just a pure gamble on upside.  Personally, I wouldn't take that gamble on a long term deal because I feel that's getting into Charlie Villenueva territory. 

Orlando seemingly feel the same way too if the rumors (about not not being willing to match deals above $11m) are true.

But alas, many people obviously believe otherwise, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see!  I won't hate life, boycott the Celtics and call for Ainge to get fired if he DID sign Harris to a max deal...but I wouldn't be thrilled about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the salary cap for this past season 63 mill and expected to be 89 mill in 2016-2017. So 11 mill last year would be equivalent to 15.5 mill a year from now? 

Are you taking that into account?

[sawick48]

Leading the league in points per possession doesn't qualify him for a max contract?  Especially for a 22 year old who averaged over 17 points per game?  Has position versatility and is known as the hardest worker his teammates have ever seen?

http://www.basketballanalyticsbook.com/2015/05/06/the-nbas-most-underrated-player/

I've mentioned this before, but that link / article really needs to be taken with a grain of salt. 
Much of what's in that link is meaningless and uses cherry picked stats to try to sell an opinion. 

Very little in there actually holds much merit. 

Also it doesn't say anything about him leading the league in points per possession.  It says he lead the league in points per possession on post up plays.  Overall, he's really not that efficient a scorer.

To put it into perspective, Harris averaged 17.1 points on 14.4 field goal attempts.  That's 1.229 Points Per FGA.

Kelly Olynyk averaged 10.3 points on 8.3 field goal attempts.  That's 1.241 points per FGA. 

To give you an idea on how that stacks up against other guys in the league, our veyr own Isaiah Thomas averaged 19.0 points on 13.6 field goal attempts, which equates to 1.397 points per FGA. 

Paul Pierce for his career averaged 20.7 points on 15.2 field goal attempts - an average of 1.36 points per FGA.

As a general rule, you can look at PTS/FGA something like this:

[a.] < 1.2 = Poor efficiency
[b.] 1.2 - 1.6 = Below average efficiency
[c.] 1.6 - 2.2 =Average efficiency
[d.] 2.4 - 3.0 = Above average efficiency
[e.] 3.0 - 3.6 = Good efficiency
[f.] 3.6 - 4.2 = Excellent efficiency
[g.] > 4.2 = Elite efficiency

Tobias Harris is in category B along with Kevin Garnett.

Remember this is NOT a measure of how capable a scorer somebody is - it's a measure of how  efficient a scorer is.  How many shots do you need in order to get your points.

Of course this stat favors guys who:
1) Get a lot of their points from three point shots (a bonus point for every 3PT made)
b) Get a long of their points from the foul line (a bonus point for every FT made)
c) Shoot high percentages from the field (more FGM relative to FGA)

KG didn't get to the line much and rarely took threes, but he still has an above average efficiency (if not a great one) simply because he was always up around the 50% FG mark. 

Isaiah Thomas has a crazy high number because:
1) He takes, and makes, a lot of threes at a solid percentage (career 36.3%)
2) He gets to the line a lot (48.1% FTR) and makes them at a high percentage (career 86% FT)
3) He shoots a decent percentage on 2PT shots (career 48.8%)

Harris is definitely a reasonably efficient scorer, but he's by no means an amazingly efficient one.

You make good points about him, but considering he's 22, he's improving, he plays a position of need, and the fact the cap is shooting up so much next year, I'll be thrilled to lock him up long term at about $15 mil per.

this is the line of thinking that gets him to that $15M per number.

on a related note, any way of seeing what Harden's #s were and how they stacked up during his last year with okc before he became a superstar himself?

[mmmmm]

As a general rule, you can look at PTS/FGA something like this:

[a.] < 1.2 = Poor efficiency
[b.] 1.2 - 1.6 = Below average efficiency
[c.] 1.6 - 2.2 =Average efficiency
[d.] 2.4 - 3.0 = Above average efficiency
[e.] 3.0 - 3.6 = Good efficiency
[f.] 3.6 - 4.2 = Excellent efficiency
[g.] > 4.2 = Elite efficiency

Uh?

Michael Jordan in 1989 (peak scoring efficiency as measured by his ridiculous 61.4% TS%): 1.45 points/FGA.   According to your scale, that is "(b) Below average efficiency"??

Kevin Durant in 2014 (63.5% TS%): 1.54 points/FGA.  Again, "Below average efficiency"

Is the above table a typo?

League average last year was 1.196 points per FGA.  I think you need to restate the scale.

I like pts/fga as a quick measure of scoring efficiency, but it does tend to amplify for players who get to the line a lot because for several plays a game, that kind of player can score several points per game with no FGA recorded.  It is subject to distortion due to that.  The FGA in the denominator doesn't accurately represent the actual number of times the player 'attempted to score'.  It doesn't include drives that result in 2FTAs because no FGA is recorded.

TS% is technically a more accurate representation of their scoring efficiency, though it is not conveniently express in points / scoring attempt.  It would be, if multiplied by two, of course.

League average TS% last year was .534.   Harris' was .550.  Not elite.  But very good -- well above average.  Ironically, it's the same number Paul Pierce posted in his age 22 season.

Boston as a team posted a TS% of just .523.  The two players who clocked the majority of our minutes at SF last year were Turner (.482) and Crowder (.512).   Of the players on contract for next year, only Zeller, Thomas and Olynyk posted a higher TS% than Crowder's, so basically the team as a whole was horribly inefficient at scoring.

[Ilikesports17]

As a general rule, you can look at PTS/FGA something like this:

[a.] < 1.2 = Poor efficiency
[b.] 1.2 - 1.6 = Below average efficiency
[c.] 1.6 - 2.2 =Average efficiency
[d.] 2.4 - 3.0 = Above average efficiency
[e.] 3.0 - 3.6 = Good efficiency
[f.] 3.6 - 4.2 = Excellent efficiency
[g.] > 4.2 = Elite efficiency

Uh?

Michael Jordan in 1989 (peak scoring efficiency as measured by his ridiculous 61.4% TS%): 1.45 points/FGA.   According to your scale, that is "(b) Below average efficiency"??

Kevin Durant in 2014 (63.5% TS%): 1.54 points/FGA.  Again, "Below average efficiency"

Is the above table a typo?

League average last year was 1.196 points per FGA.  I think you need to restate the scale.

I like pts/fga as a quick measure of scoring efficiency, but it does tend to amplify for players who get to the line a lot because for several plays a game, that kind of player can score several points per game with no FGA recorded.  It is subject to distortion due to that.  The FGA in the denominator doesn't accurately represent the actual number of times the player 'attempted to score'.  It doesn't include drives that result in 2FTAs because no FGA is recorded.

TS% is technically a more accurate representation of their scoring efficiency, though it is not conveniently express in points / scoring attempt.  It would be, if multiplied by two, of course.

League average TS% last year was .534.   Harris' was .550.  Not elite.  But very good -- well above average.  Ironically, it's the same number Paul Pierce posted in his age 22 season.

Boston as a team posted a TS% of just .523.  The two players who clocked the majority of our minutes at SF last year were Turner (.482) and Crowder (.512).   Of the players on contract for next year, only Zeller, Thomas and Olynyk posted a higher TS% than Crowder's, so basically the team as a whole was horribly inefficient at scoring.

It absolutely is. That chart means that if a player only shoots 3s, and shoots 100% he is on the low end of good.

[Smartacus]

so it's 1116 eastern, free agency starts in some 40 some odd minutes, figure now's as good a time as any to open this floodgate and see what happens.....

since joining these boards there have been 2 camps:

1 - the majority - Boston can and will attract high quality, elite free agents, they just never have before because they've never had cap space, now watch Danny work his magic, we'll end up with SOMEONE elite signing here

2 - the minority - this city is not attractive to the elite free agents and if your sights are set high, you're probably setting yourself up for a disappointment, as we watch our gm overpay to acquire at best midlevel talent


i've been staunchly in the minority, and have taken my lumps for it, but i guess time will soon tell for sure.  we have Danny, we have allllll that cap space, we have a great coach, a young roster.....only thing left to find out is if that's enough to entice the premier free agents on the market to play for tradition and join our cause for #18, or not.


my official prediction:
we overpay but ultimately land Harris at something like $60/4
same for Amir Johnson at around $21/3

the majority talks themselves into this being a victory because look we had cap space and we acquired people, even though everyone knows the sights around here as early as a month ago were set at Love, Monroe, and maybe even LMA

hope i'm wrong.  would be nice if i'm wrong.  but i don't think i'm wrong.

That is not an overpay at all, I would be ecstatic if he signed with the Celts.

i would like it myself, but it's absolutely an overpay.  the guy has done nothing to prove he's the well rounded type of player worthy of a max contract.  but that's what we'd have to do to sign him to get him to come here and i'd absolutely be willing to.

make no mistake, i'm really not trying to troll or be anti-celtic in any way here.  i'm just trying to be the voice of reason (or the devil's advocate if it's a better suit) for all the high optimism and shooting for the stars around here.  and i'm not saying that's even a bad thing!  but it seems anyone that expresses that minority opinion finds themselves udner attack for it and having to defend it whereas the opposite may not be true, at least not to the extent i've seen.

Don't speak in absolutes, saying he's done nothing to earn a max contract is asonine. How can you say he's done nothing to earn a near max contract... when he's going to be played a near max contract? What does Sawick48 know that the GMs and agents dont?

4/60 for Tobias Harris is nowhere near an overpay for the simple fact that he possesses a skillset that the league values. Has the right size, a good attitude, drive and focus and he can score from anywhere on the court.

Harris is a less talented Carmelo Anthony without the conditioning issues and off court distractions. With the cap about to explode Tobias Harris could end up as a steal.

[crimson_stallion]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the salary cap for this past season 63 mill and expected to be 89 mill in 2016-2017. So 11 mill last year would be equivalent to 15.5 mill a year from now? 

Are you taking that into account?

Close.

2014/15 = $63m
2015/16 = $67m
2016/17 = $89m

So if a guy is making the max this year, he would be on $16.75 m (25% of $67m).

When the cap rises to $89m after this season, that $16.75m will only be 19% of the cap (rather than 25% of the cap). 

Hence having a guy earning $16.75m in 2016/17 would be the equivalent of a guy who's making making $12m in 2014/15.

The point I'm trying to make is that we've been dying to rid ourselves of Wallace's $10M contract for years now, likewise we were all happy to shed Jeff Green's $9m when he got traded out.  In 2014/15 a $9M / $10M contract was certainly not considered unsubstantial - nor would be a $12M contract in 2 or 3 years from now. 

Likewise if we payed Harris $16.75m (max) this year and things didn't pan out, then we'd be stuck with a substantial contract next year too. 

Even in 2017/18 (when the cap is expected to reach $109m) it would still be the equivalent of $9m - which is basically Jeff Green's salary last year.

So as much as the rising cap does add financial flexibility and a bit more of a safety net for risk taking, it's not such a huge safety net that it can allow you to throw away max contracts like they are MLE's.  A poorly throught out max contract handed out today, could still significantly hinder your team's payroll 2-3 years from now.

[mmmmm]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the salary cap for this past season 63 mill and expected to be 89 mill in 2016-2017. So 11 mill last year would be equivalent to 15.5 mill a year from now? 

Are you taking that into account?

Close.

2014/15 = $63m
2015/16 = $67m
2016/17 = $89m

So if a guy is making the max this year, he would be on $16.75 m (25% of $67m).

That number is not quite correct.  The 'cap' used for the maximum salary 'percent of cap' calculation is not the regular salary cap number.  It is actually about 94% of it.

From http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q16

"They use a different cap calculation to determine the maximum salaries, which is based on 42.14% of projected BRI rather than 44.74%."

Thus, for a 0-6 year player, using this year's salary cap number of 67M, the max salary would be 15.8M.

Next year, using a 89M salary cap number, the same category of player would cost 20.95M.

[crimson_stallion]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the salary cap for this past season 63 mill and expected to be 89 mill in 2016-2017. So 11 mill last year would be equivalent to 15.5 mill a year from now? 

Are you taking that into account?

Close.

2014/15 = $63m
2015/16 = $67m
2016/17 = $89m

So if a guy is making the max this year, he would be on $16.75 m (25% of $67m).

That number is not quite correct.  The 'cap' used for the maximum salary 'percent of cap' calculation is not the regular salary cap number.  It is actually about 94% of it.

From http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q16

"They use a different cap calculation to determine the maximum salaries, which is based on 42.14% of projected BRI rather than 44.74%."

Thus, for a 0-6 year player, using this year's salary cap number of 67M, the max salary would be 15.8M.

Next year, using a 89M salary cap number, the same category of player would cost 20.95M.

Yeah, I'm sure my figures aren't 100% correct (I don't even know if the cap figures for future years are 100% confirmed yet) just using ballpark figures to express the concept that a 4 year max contract (even after the cap goes up) is not something insignificant - it's still a lot of money to have on your payroll, and a couple of those (one of them, even) is still potentially enough to impact your future flexibility if it doesn't pan out as you hoped.

That's why I would be a little hesitant to go throwing max contracts and near-max contracts at every guy that's available and that we feel is an upgrade over our current team. 

If we're overpaying a little (say $12M for a guy who you'd normally pay $10M for) then that's not such a big deal because the rising cap will essentially render that difference irrelevant.  But if we're overpaying substantially (say, $15M for a guy you'd normally pay $10M for) based purely on the fact that the cap is rising, then you're taking a big gamble on a deal that may hurt you more then you realise 2-3 years down the track. 

Really, even if you sign 4 or 5 guys and overpay each one by $2M/year- that's $8M - $10M a year being thrown away. 

[crimson_stallion]

Uh?

Michael Jordan in 1989 (peak scoring efficiency as measured by his ridiculous 61.4% TS%): 1.45 points/FGA.   According to your scale, that is "(b) Below average efficiency"??

Kevin Durant in 2014 (63.5% TS%): 1.54 points/FGA.  Again, "Below average efficiency"

Is the above table a typo?

Yes, indeed it was haha

I meant to write..

[a.] < 1.12 = Poor efficiency
[b.] 1.12 - 1.16 = Below average efficiency
[c.] 1.16 - 1.22 =Average efficiency
[d.] 1.24 - 1.30 = Above average efficiency
[e.] 1.30 - 1.36 = Good efficiency
[f.] 1.36 - 1.42 = Excellent efficiency
[g.] > 1.42 = Elite efficiency

Some examples of each (I included some upcoming free agents for fun):

Category A
Evan Turner (1.04), Avery Bradley (1.06), Jared Sullinger (1.09), Marcus Smart (1.10)

Category B
Jonas Jerebko (1.14), Jae Crowder (1.15)

Category C
LaMarcus Aldridge (1.76), Tobias Harris (1.22)

Category D
Kelly Olynyk (1.24), Brandon Bass (1.28), Greg Monroe (1.28)

Category E
Kevin Love (1.29)

Category F
Isaiah Thomas (1.40) and Tyler Zeller (1.36), Lebron James (1.36), Stephen Curry (1.42)

Category G
Jimmy Butler (1.43)

In Zeller's case, which may seem surprising, it's because of his free throw shooting (30% Free Throw Rate, 82.3% FT) and the fact that he shoots a stupid high percentage on 2PT shots (54.9%). 

[BDeCosta26]

It's a stupid debate anyway, because it makes it seem like an absolute question without taking into account the myriad of variables involved

It's true this is the first time we've ever had legit cap space so when people say "Boston has never attracts top FA's" I think that's pretty stupid. You can't sign anyone if you don't have the required cap space.

But at the same time, people on the opposite side need to really temper their expectations because there are so many variables that go into landing one, just having the available cap space isn't enough. For one, we still don't have any star players here, and of the biggest name guys are gonna move, most want to go to a team with another star. So many things go into a players decision in FA like where they're originally from, the strength of the conferences, future outlook, ability to contend right away, the strength of the FA class, the future cap situation, etc. that no matter whether or not we sign anyone it doesn't prove the "Can Boston sign any elite FA?" question one way or another.

It doesn't matter what happens this year, because one chance at it doesn't prove anything for either side.