NBA 2020-21 Season - Game Day Thread (Bring Back The Wolf Pit!)

[J-ALL-DAY]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

Nobody is arguing he's a bust.  Nobody is saying there isn't hope for him.  But based on what he's done this far, there's nothing to suggest he's a future star in the making.  If he wasn't the #2 pick last year, we probably wouldn't be talking about him as a significant piece of a trade package for Dame.

He WAS the #2 overall pick though and for good reason. What was expected from him anyways? Did anyone expect a kid who is essentially coming out of HS to know how to play defense at a high level? He scored and rebounded fine. Still needs to develop in a lot of areas but he would fit the Blazers rebuilding timeline perfectly. Blazers wouldn't be expecting to win anytime soon and he will get to grow there opposed to playing on a team with championship aspirations. 

[seminoles1]

3 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Again, $30M+ for a 3&D wing is horrible use of the cap.  There's no way to slice it.  He's a bad contract.  And that's assuming he can continue to play as well as he did last year.

I'm not arguing that he's not overpaid. No one in the world outside of Wiggins, his family, and his agent would argue that. I'm also not arguing that Golden State can offer the best package because I think a couple teams could beat them out.

They have to take back money. No team has the cap room to absorb Lillard in a trade outside of NY. Unless I'm overlooking someone who'd be interested, no one has big expirings that they can send Portland (I guess Miami does if they pickup the options for Dragic and Iguodala, but their actual package would be much worse than Golden State's). Saying it's a bad use of cap is both obvious and misguided at the same time here. You can't look at Wiggins' contract in a vacuum.

[J-ALL-DAY]

6 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

You literally just made the argument that because he's a FA in 2 years, he won't be grossly overpaid.  That doesn't change the fact that TODAY he's grossly overpaid.  You don't pay $30M+ to a solid starter.  You're expecting star production when you're paying that much.  And the player you're describing are of value to teams with their stars in place.  If Portland trades Dame, then they don't have a star in place ergo Wiggins value is limited and he's back to his Minnesota days when you've got an okay player putting up inefficient numbers on a bad team.

Yet Houston traded him AND a FRP for Robert Covington.  That's so incredibly valuable.

Because they had to try to maximize Westbrook's ability to the fullest and he needed that extra spacing. How did that trade work out for Houston? How did Capela do in Atlanta? 

[beekay414]

12 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

Paced closer to .500 because the team went 1-7 without Steph. 

38-26 with him, 1-7 without him. 

Again though, even if you don't think the team wasn't "good," that doesn't take away from what I said about Wiggins. All was true. 

No, you played closer to a .500 team WITH Steph until the cushy part of the schedule hit at the end of the year. 

And Steph played 63 games. 37-26 is what the record was but it paced at 30-25 until the end of the season when you got to the stretch I pointed out. Had two great wins at the end, no doubt, but we just have different ideas of what a "good" team is.

[J-ALL-DAY]

1 minute ago, seminoles1 said:

I'm not arguing that he's not overpaid. No one in the world outside of Wiggins, his family, and his agent would argue that. I'm also not arguing that Golden State can offer the best package because I think a couple teams could beat them out.

They have to take back money. No team has the cap room to absorb Lillard in a trade outside of NY. Unless I'm overlooking someone who'd be interested, no one has big expirings that they can send Portland (I guess Miami does if they pickup the options for Dragic and Iguodala, but their actual package would be much worse than Golden State's). Saying it's a bad use of cap is both obvious and misguided at the same time here. You can't look at Wiggins' contract in a vacuum.

More importantly, they can flip his contract with little to no problem after they hoard all the picks after they get done trading CJ/Dame. 

[Mox]

32 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

You literally just made the argument that because he's a FA in 2 years, he won't be grossly overpaid.  That doesn't change the fact that TODAY he's grossly overpaid.  You don't pay $30M+ to a solid starter.  You're expecting star production when you're paying that much.  And the player you're describing are of value to teams with their stars in place.  If Portland trades Dame, then they don't have a star in place ergo Wiggins value is limited and he's back to his Minnesota days when you've got an okay player putting up inefficient numbers on a bad team.

Yet Houston traded him AND a FRP for Robert Covington.  That's so incredibly valuable.

If you took it that way and I wasn't clear that's my bad. That is not the argument I'm making. I explained it clearly in my last post. He won't be making top 30 in the NBA money anymore, his contract isn't as crippling as it was. Especially considering he fills a valuable role. It has nothing to do with when he hits free agency.

I don't know what you don't understand about this. He's already making 30m+. No one is denying he's overpaid. You have to match salaries to get Dame. So if it's not Wiggins, then it is someone else making a ton of money or a collection of guys on mid level contracts. They have limited options to make a deal and that likely means they have to take a big contract back.

You're acting like I'm saying Wiggins is paid according to his value. He's not. That doesn't change that fact that he isn't the massive negative he was a year ago, and is only a slight one now. Telling us he's overpaid and not offering star production to match his contract is not useful because we already know that. You're arguing with yourself.

Sweet, Capela was traded while injured. Then he showed up averaged 15 and 14 on 60% shooting with elite defense and Atlanta improved significantly while Houston fell apart. He's pretty clearly very valuable and numbers back that up.

Edited July 16, 2021 by Bullet Club

[Mox]

55 minutes ago, beekay414 said:

Why are people saying Wiggins has proven he can be a guy on a good team? The Warriors weren't good.

Depends on your definition of good I suppose.

[J-ALL-DAY]

Just now, beekay414 said:

No, you played closer to a .500 team WITH Steph until the cushy part of the schedule hit at the end of the year. 

And Steph played 63 games. 37-26 is what the record was but it paced at 30-25 until the end of the season when you got to the stretch I pointed out. Had two great wins at the end, no doubt, but we just have different ideas of what a "good" team is.

Okay, so a team on pace to win 48 games instead of 50.

Why are you taking out the cushy part of the schedule though? Those are the types of games they will every single season. Team went on a nice run late in the season when Oubre got hurt and Poole started to emerge. 

But that's fine if the team was a little better than average. Are you arguing against Wiggins playing good defense and shooting the ball well from down town while averaging nearly 20 PPG? 

[seminoles1]

7 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

You literally just made the argument that because he's a FA in 2 years, he won't be grossly overpaid.  That doesn't change the fact that TODAY he's grossly overpaid.  You don't pay $30M+ to a solid starter.  You're expecting star production when you're paying that much.  And the player you're describing are of value to teams with their stars in place.  If Portland trades Dame, then they don't have a star in place ergo Wiggins value is limited and he's back to his Minnesota days when you've got an okay player putting up inefficient numbers on a bad team.

Why are you posting as if we're saying Wiggins is the headline? He's clearly a throw-in for salary purposes. But because he did rehabilitate his value and showed improvement in regards to defense and shooting as opposed to just some chucker, he isn't an albatross like Westbrook and Wall. Those 2 make SIGNIFICANTLY more and are absolute liabilities in the playoffs with major injury concerns. They don't hold any potential future value like Wiggins could, either on his next contract as a good role player already in place or as a trade piece when he becomes an expiring contract.

No one said Wiggins should be considered a full-on plus in a trade here; I came closest because it simplifies the trade. Portland just doesn't have a lot of options here because of how bad their cap is right now.

What contracts from other potential destinations should sway Portland away from this deal? What are the better uses of the cap that Portland should be looking for?

[Mox]

1 minute ago, seminoles1 said:

Why are you posting as if we're saying Wiggins is the headline? He's clearly a throw-in for salary purposes. But because he did rehabilitate his value and showed improvement in regards to defense and shooting as opposed to just some chucker, he isn't an albatross like Westbrook and Wall. Those 2 make SIGNIFICANTLY more and are absolute liabilities in the playoffs with major injury concerns. They don't hold any potential future value like Wiggins could, either on his next contract as a good role player already in place or as a trade piece when he becomes an expiring contract.

No one said Wiggins should be considered a full-on plus in a trade here; I came closest because it simplifies the trade. Portland just doesn't have a lot of options here because of how bad their cap is right now.

What contracts from other potential destinations should sway Portland away from this deal? What are the better uses of the cap that Portland should be looking for?

Beautifully said.

[beekay414]

5 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

Are you arguing against Wiggins playing good defense and shooting the ball well from down town while averaging nearly 20 PPG? 

No because you can't argue the stats. I'm arguing the concept of him contributing to a good team. We just have different ideas as to what a "good" team is.

[seminoles1]

12 minutes ago, beekay414 said:

No, you played closer to a .500 team WITH Steph until the cushy part of the schedule hit at the end of the year. 

And Steph played 63 games. 37-26 is what the record was but it paced at 30-25 until the end of the season when you got to the stretch I pointed out. Had two great wins at the end, no doubt, but we just have different ideas of what a "good" team is.

Everyone has those stretches against bad teams. You can't take those away.

[seminoles1]

3 minutes ago, beekay414 said:

No because you can't argue the stats. I'm arguing the concept of him contributing to a good team. We just have different ideas as to what a "good" team is.

Those are universal traits though. Every team wants and needs long defenders who can shoot the 3. Wiggins hadn't shown he could be that guy before, but he did this season.

Would you trade Pat for Wiggins? Disregard contracts for a second. Do you think Wiggins would be helping more than Pat right now?

[beekay414]

3 minutes ago, seminoles1 said:

Everyone has those stretches against bad teams. You can't take those away.

End of year is different

[beekay414]

25 minutes ago, seminoles1 said:

Those are universal traits though. Every team wants and needs long defenders who can shoot the 3. Wiggins hadn't shown he could be that guy before, but he did this season.

They aren't universal traits tho. How will he produce when his role is drastically reduced? He's still a career 34% 3pt shooter so, right now, last year is the outlier. We have seven seasons of him shooting 33% from 3 and one season where he shot 38%. How confident can we be that he's a true 3&D guy? There's still too much variance to say confidently that he can adapt to that role.

 

27 minutes ago, seminoles1 said:

Would you trade Pat for Wiggins? Disregard contracts for a second. Do you think Wiggins would be helping more than Pat right now?

Considering what I stated above, there's no way of truly knowing. Pat plays his role well enough. And we can't just ignore contracts. Wiggins is making $33 Million and you're trying to compare his role to a man making $6 Million. That, in itself, is enough reason to be hesitant on Wiggins and his "value."