Is the PG position really worth a max contract?

[GreatestLaker]

PLAYED POORLY?
YOU CLEARLY DIDNT WATCH THOSE SERIES.
ROSE WAS BEASTING THE PACERS TIL HE HURT HIS ANKLE.
nikka DROPPED 39/36 PTS IN THE 1ST 2 GAMES.
THEY WERE PLAYING HIM PHYSICAL AS fukk AFTER THEY WENT DOWN 2-0
AND THE REFS LET A LOT OF DIRTY PLAY SLIDE IN INDIANA.
HE SHOT ABOUT 25% IN INDIANA.
THE 3 GAMES IN CHICAGO HE AROUND 46% AVERAGED 30+ PTS.
HE AVERAGED 30 & 10 VS ATL ON 45% SHOOTING ON A BUM ANKLE.
MIA HIT HIM WITH THE JORDAN RULES AND HIS TEAMMATES DID NOTHING.
​

vs Pacers
27.6/4.6/6.2 on 37%

vs Hawks
29.8/4.3/9.8 on 45%

vs Heat
23.4/4.0/6.6 on 35%

I didn't remember Rose having that great of a series vs the Hawks, but he played poorly in the other 2 series. His numbers vs the Heat are embarrassingly bad. I don't care how bad your teammates played, no "MVP" player should ever put up those kind of numbers.

 

[mastermind]

I agree, but let's be honest. You need LESS talent around a guy like say... Dirk/Duncan/Shaq or Kobe/Wade/Bron to win a title than the talent you would need around a guy like.... CP3 or Deron or Rondo.

indeed

you dont need to give a player 30% of your cap even though you need a lot more to win with him versus another player where you dont need that much.

 

[Regular_P]

Lol @ the Heat winning titles with Rose instead of LeBron.

 

[Hahahaha]

In the current NBA I'd take a Max level PG and Center and then just surround them with defensive 3pt bombers. The issue is that very PG's are good enough to have max level contracts.

Does anyone else think that if you paired a prime Shaq with a CP3 they wouldn't win titles too?

 

[Poitier]

I agree, but let's be honest. You need LESS talent around a guy like say... Dirk/Duncan/Shaq or Kobe/Wade/Bron to win a title than the talent you would need around a guy like.... CP3 or Deron or Rondo.

Those pass-first, distributing PGs can't be your number 1 option. They can't be your go-to guy. They can't be your highest paid player. Which is what I think is the point of this thread. All Dirk needed was a couple defensive players in Chandler and Marion and shooters. That was enough.

Now let's talk about what CP3 or Deron would need to have a playoff run including sweeping the lakers, beating OKC with harden-westbrook-durant, and then beating the Big 3 in Miami. Those dudes would still need another $15mil+ first option scorer. And then the argument is made that you could just do it with the scorer and use the money you spent on the elite PG to get complimentary pieces.

You don't say it takes less to build around top 15 players all time than it does fringe top 50 all time PG?


If you want to be truthful, you should be comparing Lebron/Kobe/Duncan/Dirk to Magic/Nash/Oscar/Payton/Kidd/Stockton and even then, only Magic and Oscar are in the same tier. Like, why create this thread when any GM and most people with common sense knows that it's smarter to choose an elite wing that can run an offense or a defensive anchor bigman over a diminutive PG? But guess what? There are 30 teams and at most 5-8 players truly worth max contracts. People aren't being willfully negligent or unaware of some secret information that Coli GMs think only they know

 

[Regular_P]

If Miami swapped out Wade for Paul, do you guys think they wouldn't have won any titles?

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

The problem with PG is their first mission is to run the play, which involves PASSING THE BALL... and it's not football, where passing the ball gets you all the attention and awards.. you average 15 assists and still won't be seen as the star if someone else is getting 25 points and 10 rebounds.

where in football if you make 20 passes, but the receivers do all the running and scoring, the qb will be the one praised.. I've only seen one time a receiver get more love than the qb and that was jerry rice getting the super bowl mvp over Montana. and even then the world says it should have been Montana

but look to the pacers to see all you need to know about not having a good PG. that team was solid except that one position.. and the fact that they always have the ball first, and turned it over so many damn times, lost them the games in the ECF. look at old westbrook... trying to do it all himself and how bad that started working out with Durant.. he slowed it up and got better and they hit the finals that year. now he got injured and they went nowhere... he's back and.....

look at Iverson and that sorry sixers team he took to the finals.. single handedly gave the lakers their only loss in the playoffs.. even he said it all the time... look at the clippers before cp3... I mean there's example after example of a good pg who can lead a team to greatness.. but if you passing to a bunch of scrubs who miss shots and don't finish.... well... look at cp3...

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

A PG that loses a step doesn't have size to fall back on, or be a defensive anchor. I'd be more mindful of injury history with them than any other position, a big man is always going to be big no matter what happens to their wheels. A PG doesn't transition into other positions as easily, your 6'9" SF loses a step? play him at the 4, your 6'2" PG loses a step and????

Loses a step? We talking about Curry's ankle issues here. If the argument is that you won't be giving Curry the max because of his ankles, than it won't be because he loses a step, it will because he won't be able to get out on the court. Transitioning into other positions doesn't even come into the equation. At position value, how's Curry's situation any different to Bynum's?

Taking on a max contract for the Spurs would have meant someone of their core 3 would be gone, so that was never an option for them. It's only affordable if you're ok with losing Duncan or Manu at some point in time, which is clearly not in their plans.

That wasn't the question.

Would either D-Will, Rose, Paul, Westbrook or Wall win a title in 06-07 with the Spurs?

The Spurs were only able to keep that core, because of the luck that came with the timing of when those players were drafted/developed, not because they didn't deserve or were worth a max contract. If you were to weigh their impact/production with the salaries on that title team (more so Parker than Ginobili), he was worth a lot more than 9 mil.

Just as if you were to take all 3 of them at their market peaks (or near), the Spurs wouldn't be able to keep them together. Parker was worth a max contract in 06-07, Spurs were just extremely fortunate that all the right factors came into play for him to still be on less than double digit money.

 

[mastermind]

brehs are mixing things up here

no one is saying you should sign bum point guards or that point guards arent difference makers (if the Pacers just had a good point guard they would beat Miami without much problems, imo). The question is whether point guards are worth max contracts, ie taking up 30% of a team's salary cap. They arent, especially with the abundance of good point guard play the last 5 years.

 

[HiphopRelated]

If Miami swapped out Wade for Paul, do you guys think they wouldn't have won any titles?

Who replaces Wade? Let's say the SG equivalent of Chalmers maybe...Gary Neal. I think both the offense and even more the defense takes a hit. Doesn't mean they can't win, but they would be a worse team.

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

It's an interesting argument but there are a lot of factors to what goes into winning a title... If we go back to the Heat/Mavs series, LeBron is the clear best player on the court but he struggled at times, Wade tried to pick up the slack but they fell short.. Jason Terry who is far from a dominant guard had some huge games in the playoffs. Without his contribution Dallas and Dirk are not winning the title but who would have guessed that Jet would ever make the difference?

If you are a GM putting a team together.. a guy like Terry isn't someone you look at and say "We have to have HIM!", he's viewed as a dime a dozen guard.. but there he was making huge shots all through the playoffs and without him they probably don't win.

 

[Poitier]

brehs are mixing things up here

no one is saying you should sign bum point guards or that point guards arent difference makers (if the Pacers just had a good point guard they would beat Miami without much problems, imo). The question is whether point guards are worth max contracts, ie taking up 30% of a team's salary cap. They arent, especially with the abundance of good point guard play the last 5 years.

There are at most 8 players today worth max contracts and it isn't based on position. Better believe if modern day Magic existed, he'd be worth the max and then some...

Any PG not named Chris Paul isn't elite and even he pales in comparison to the top 15 all time players yall are listing as better, which is fukking common sense

Plus, yall are acting like GMs don't already overpay for SIZE, just not enough bigmen, and potential point forwards, which usually don't develop to that level...

 

[Malta]

You don't say it takes less to build around top 15 players all time than it does fringe top 50 all time PG?


If you want to be truthful, you should be comparing Lebron/Kobe/Duncan/Dirk to Magic/Nash/Oscar/Payton/Kidd/Stockton and even then, only Magic and Oscar are in the same tier. Like, why create this thread when any GM and most people with common sense knows that it's smarter to choose an elite wing that can run an offense or a defensive anchor bigman over a diminutive PG? But guess what? There are 30 teams and at most 5-8 players truly worth max contracts. People aren't being willfully negligent or unaware of some secret information that Coli GMs think only they know

The NBA doesn't work like that, we all know only certain players honestly deserve the max, that doesn't stop GMs from throwing them out there left and right. Also, what stops people from getting into the "All time great" lists are titles, CP3 has arguably the best stats in the modern era for a PG yet we won't talk about him being one of the top 15-20 players ever until he wins rings, right? He's a top 10 talent in the league and has regularly been the best player in the league at his position, why then is it so difficult to build a team around him, after all if he gets a title or two you'll hear that "ATG" talk pop up.

The PG spot is hard to build around, everyone keeps saying "What about if you dropped Xyz" onto some other team where that PG would no longer be the best player.

If Miami swapped out Wade for Paul, do you guys think they wouldn't have won any titles?

I don't think a PG like Paul would work with LeBron, if you said Curry or Kyrie, guys who are closer to SGs I'd say yeah.

 

[Majestic Pape]

PGs that have max contracts -

John Wall
Derrick Rose
Deron Williams
Gilbert Arenas ()
Russell Westbrook
Chris Paul

And while he's not making max Ty Lawson is around $13 million a year, which is insane imo, dude doesn't have the impact on the game to deserve that. You can make the case that Steph Curry is the best PG in the league right now, and he's got a 4 year $44 million contract, which is great value for a player putting up 23/9 but as good as he is I still wouldn't want to max him out when the time comes because of those creaky ankles.

I don't know, if I were a GM I would never give a PG a max contract, not unless they are one of those rare 6'5"+ dudes that can get their shot off anytime they want. All of these great guards and the best PG to win a title in the last 10 years was Tony Parker, and when he did it he wasn't a max player, which allowed the Spurs to spend money on more important positions. I'm to the point where I wouldn't even build a team around one if it meant giving them a max contract, seems like such a waste of caproom when you can spend that on a swing or a big man. And these dudes were overpaid as fukk up until last summer, I mean George Hill/Ty Lawson are making more than Teague, Lowry & Jennings when they are all pretty much the same player and have a similar impact on the game.

The last 20 champs had these PGs starting -
Chalmers x 2
Kidd
Fisher x 2
Rondo
Parker
J. Williams
Parker
Billups
Parker
Fisher
Brian Shaw/Fisher
Ron Harper
Avery Johnson
Ron Harper X 3
Kenny Smith x 2

The vast majority of these teams started PGs that weren't even top 5 in the league, shyt some aren't even top 15. The position just doesn't have the impact like that, maybe it will in the future with all these 6'4"+ converted SGs starting to take over the position, but that ball dominating style Chris Paul plays will not get it done if he's your max/best player on the team. If you told me to pick between Jeff Teague at $8 million a year, or Chris Paul at $18 million....I'm taking Teague

And let's also note that Rondo and Kidd were nowhere near their peaks when they won those titles, which probably cements your point even more.

 

[mastermind]

There are at most 8 players today worth max contracts and it isn't based on position. Better believe if modern day Magic existed, he'd be worth the max and then some...

no shyt, Magic was mentioned in the first post. Also Magic was 6'8" or so, meaning he could guard 4 positions and play 4 positions. You cant say that about a guy like Chris Paul.

But yeah, there arent more than 8 players worth the max in the current NBA. The point is that there isnt an equivalent to an elite wing or big at the point guard position. Even CP3 isnt as much of a difference maker as an elite wing or center.