Dollar for dollar, when a GM is budgeting, s/he wants to get output from each player in proportion to what is being paid out. In other words, if you compared the proportion of player output they should be roughly equal to the proportion of their salary to the team. I grabbed a Rockets payroll and simply called TOTAL points+assists+rebounds "production". In other words, what % of the sum total of stats so far has that player contributed (not per game). We can immediately see a couple of things. In terms of salaries being paid equitably with value - Westbrook and Gordon are the biggest sources of wasted dollars. To improve the output of this roster versus the cost, those two should be the first under the microscope. It doesn't mean they are bad players, but their price tag is too high for what we're currently getting. Those dollars could be redistributed to players more worth their own salary level. This is how you have to manage under a cap. On the flipside, a lot of frustration (mine included) goes towards Tucker, House, Mclemore, etc. But you're getting what you should get out of them at their price tags. Nene, Chandler and Green meanwhile are taking up space that could get you another Rivers/McLemore level player or two. But if this teams biggest weakness IS House/Tucker as the front court (and it is), you have to use Westbrook or Gordon to achieve that rebalance - and we're locked in to those two. Good luck Morey. [PS, when analyzing proportions there are always flaws. If one played is overachieving others will be deflated. Grain of salt required.]
wow, impressive EG's ROI looks terrible, but not unexpected As for russ, i don't think his impact can be gauged and judged by numbers, definitely intangible. In certain post, lately, the op hold 'harden can never be a leader', actually i suppose russ were the real captain of this team, as long as he could hold his temper and make good use of his emotion, he would be a brilliant one. His desire for Ws and intensity in the game are things harden lack of (especially in those off nights).
KISS: They're paying a **** ton to their guards and a **** little to their forwards. Too many guards & small ball, not enough forwards. Westbrook $38,506,482 Harden $38,199,000 Gordon $14,057,730 Rivers $2,174,318 McLemore $2,028,594 Green $1,620,564 Clemons $563,347 $97,150,035 Capela $14,896,552 Nene $2,564,753 Chandler $1,620,564 Hartenstein $1,416,852 $20,498,721 Tucker $8,349,039 House $3,540,000 Sefolosha $1,620,564 $13,509,603
Do you know why we gave EG an extension before the season began? He could have been a great expiring contract bargaining chip for trades, IMO.
100%. But you could pay a ton to guards if your guards were all-world (e.g. Harden/Paul, Steph/Klay, Point-Foward-Lebron/Wade) and you could find bargain two way forwards. But obviously neither are true. My OP is just one of the views Morey should take at the deadline. Which is even worse now that we burned most of our picks to get here. Just another case I'm making that we're not building an analytics / moneyball roster, and I don't understand what's going on in the heads of Rockets mgmt.
I don't totally disagree, but if Russ's value is playmaking there has to be guys to make plays for, and his contract takes up almost 30% of the cap which prevents that. It's a vicious cycle type of thing.
mmm I think our system in particular relies on some players to make it work. And you have 2 of the players with biggest usage rate on the history of the game. Not sure we can rely on your table because of that. If production on "hard" stats is the measure, then our system should guarantee similar opportunities to do so. And we all know that's not the case.
Like the approach, but of course undervalues defense. The EG extension is pretty close to the most confusing thing DM has ever done, to me. Which makes me think it was probably Tilman driven.
I get what you're saying, but that's probably just overreaction to bad stretch. Whereas with the Gordon extension, it was like wtf? You have to ask, what are the chances he plays himself into an even bigger contract than the extension provided? Probably very close to zero... will be 31.5 years old, as of last summer hadn't played in 70 games in 2 years (and of course we now know that trend will continue), solid 3 point shooter but not the best ever, solid defender, solid creator, etc, but no one was giving this dude $20+. So then you factor what if he just walks otherwise for something less than you'd offer him this upcoming offseason. Sure... a risk, especially because given Harden/Westbrook you have little room to sign anyone else anyway so you don't want to lose something for nothing, but again, at that point, just offer more/comparable deal. Even Ariza would have come back if he thought he was going to get close to what the Suns offered him - he knew it wasn't happening, took the check... more power to him. In the unlikely scenario someone just said EG, how about $22 million for one year. you can match it, or make an offer similar to what you did, which for a player constantly injured might be attractive over a one year deal. But for all that, when you factor in the fact that he is completely un-tradeable to help in anyway this year, you HAD to take the risk of not extending him. If you trade Clint, you're screwed because you have no center and your already horrible defense falls off a cliff. Can't trade Harden or Westbrook. Can trade Tucker, but you do value his defense and at $8 million a year, what would you get back? Gordon had a $14 million expiring contract - sizeable enough to get something decent back (eg. Marcus Morris type) or to group with a couple of smaller contracts to get something legitimate back. I can only assume DM thought the Nene deal was for sure going to be ok, and that was his trade chip... but still... crazy to extend.
How about just win shares? Not going to be as pretty as napalms spreadsheet According to basketball reference we have 26.4 total WS Harden : 8.6 = 32.5 % of our win shares at 28% of our salary Capela : 4.7 = 17.8 % of our win shares at 12% of our salary Tucker : 2.6 = 9.8 % of our win shares at 6% of our salary Westbrook : 2.6 = 9.8% of our win shares at 28% of our salary House : 2.0 = 7.5% of our win shares at 3% of our salary McLemore : 1.9 = 7.2% of our win shares at 2% of our salary Hartenstein : 1.1 = 4.2% of our win shares at 1% of our salary Rivers : 1.1 = 4.2% of our win shares at 2% of our salary Chandler : 0.6 = 2.3% of our win shares at 2% of our salary Clemons : 0.4 = 1.5% of our win shares at ~ 0% of our salary Sefolosha : 0.4 = 1.5% of our win shares at 2% of our salary Gordon : -0.2 = -0.8% of our win shares at 10% of our salary Bolded are the contracts that are underperforming based on win shares. Didn't include Clark, Green, Anderson or Frazier. Clark was a positive value contract based on win shares and obviously Green, Anderson and Frazier are negative.
Also a pretty telling tale of our season thus far based on this particular metric. A journeyman, aging defensive specialist checks in at number 3 on our teams win shares. Not a great sign.
No...definitely not. Unfortunately, with everything thats going on....it looks like Clint is our number one trade asset....idk if Morey will trade him or just hope for something on the buy out market.
We needed to lockup our backup PF long term. When PJ slides to the 5 we need EGOs size and length at the 4 spot for our super-big lineup.