What is the counterpart to “underrated”? It’s not exactly “overrated,” at least for the context of this discussion.
Earlier this week, I highlighted five positive developments from the NBA offseason that haven’t garnered sufficient attention, both for their potential effects and the ingenuity involved in executing them. Now, let’s explore the opposite perspective—moves that have not faced much negative criticism despite their significant drawbacks. I wouldn’t label them as “overrated,” but rather “under-scrutinized,” and they have left me with several questions.
It’s important to note that not every questionable move from this summer qualifies for this list. The Chicago Bulls faced widespread backlash for trading Alex Caruso in exchange for Josh Giddey without receiving any draft picks, so I won’t add to that criticism. Likewise, the Denver Nuggets’ offseason was rather lackluster and disappointing, but I am certainly not the first to make that observation.
I also opted not to include obvious “non-moves.” There are plenty of examples one could mention. For example, I’m still curious about what the New Orleans Pelicans’ potential opening day lineup might be—this can’t be all of it, right? I also expect the Cleveland Cavaliers will eventually add another player or two to complete their roster.
Additionally, there exists a category of contracts that might seem “bad” according to statistical models of expected return. However, teams often have little choice but to either pay or risk losing the player altogether. The new contracts for Pascal Siakam, OG Anunoby, and Nic Claxton fit this description. Malik Monk’s deal in Sacramento could arguably belong here as well, just like Paul George’s signing with the Philadelphia 76ers—the highlight of the summer—which might ultimately be unfavorable considering the latter years of his four-year, $212 million contract. Anyway, flags fly forever.
Discover the narrative of the greatest players in NBA history. Through 100 engaging profiles, leading basketball writers defend their choices and unveil the history of the NBA.
Uncover the story of the greatest plays in NBA history.
Yet, some moves remain that I still have questions about. Here are my top five “under-scrutinized” moves:
In late July, Andrew Nembhard signed an extension with the Indiana Pacers, reported to be three years worth $59 million. This agreement was announced while the focus was elsewhere, particularly on the Olympics, causing many to simply shrug and say, “Yeah, three years…”
“For $59 million? Whatever, seems fine.”
When considering any extension, the focus should not solely be on the number of years and the total amount but rather on the new years and new money involved. The Indiana Pacers had already secured Nembhard’s services for two additional seasons at a modest $2 million-plus each year. The extension eliminated the second year, which was previously a team option for the Pacers.
This results in a real valuation of two years and $57 million, an astonishing figure for a player of his caliber. While it is true that Nembhard performed well in the playoffs and is recognized as a positive team defender with a strong basketball IQ, his career Player Efficiency Rating (PER) stands at just 10.6. If you genuinely believe he can maintain a 48.6 percent shooting rate from three-point range, as he did over 17 playoff games, feel free to be enthusiastic; however, his career average sits at 35.3 percent on modest attempts.
Irrespective of personal perspectives on Nembhard, it’s reasonable to conclude that his ascension to a player capable of commanding $28 million per year in the open market exceeds expectations given his current standing in the league. Essentially, that’s the amount he was given.
Moreover, this was not the last opportunity for the Pacers to negotiate a similar deal. They essentially had two additional windows to extend Nembhard — one after the upcoming season and another before he enters the free-agent market in 2026. Acquiring an extra year of data by next summer could provide significant insights into whether they are investing in fleeting playoff success or a more sustainable future.
However, let’s explore the opposing viewpoint. One argument commonly made in small-market contexts is that retaining player rights is critical, a principle I experienced firsthand while serving as vice president of basketball operations in Memphis. Even so, this contract seems somewhat lacking: While it represents the highest annual figure the Pacers could offer Nembhard, the extension falls a year short of the maximum allowable length. A team option for a final year around $19 million might have alleviated some concerns about the deal.
A significant point of contention regarding this contract is the 2025-26 season. It appears that the Pacers may have given up too much value by increasing his salary from $2.2 million to $18.1 million. For a team that never intends to pay luxury tax, this adjustment could be detrimental.
Currently, the Pacers likely have just enough space below the tax threshold (I estimate around $33 million at the moment, with only nine guaranteed contracts) to retain Myles Turner and accommodate their first-round draft pick in 2025. However, beyond that, they may be unable to add any new players and might even have to part with another mid-sized salary to make the finances work.
Of course, circumstances could change as the next offseason approaches, but as of now, it appears they sacrificed the use of their nontaxpayer midlevel exception just to grant Nembhard a more lucrative contract … without realizing significant benefits in later years. Time will reveal the outcome.
The approach I would have taken if I were in Indiana’s position would involve making the same extension in terms of years and money, but initiating it after the budget-friendly 2025-26 season. This would transform the new years and new money into a clear three-year deal for $59 million instead of two years for $57 million.
Nembhard is unlikely to evolve into a maximum contract player, and role-playing guards have struggled to secure midlevel exception contracts this past summer. One could argue that the reported three-year $59 million deal was ambitious based on the overall market trends.
While I generally applaud the Pacers’ efforts over the past few years to reach their current position, including the recent groundbreaking for my condo project on Furphy Island, I must express my disapproval of this specific move.
Receive free daily sports updates straight to your inbox.
Receive free daily sports updates straight to your inbox.
Extension Victory Laps
The extension for Nembhard stands out as the prime example of a broader category of offseason moves this summer, which I refer to as “extension victory laps.”
Specifically, four players from the 2021 draft, who would not typically rank among the top 20 players in the league, received maximum rookie extensions that included supermax language. These players are Cade Cunningham from Detroit, Scottie Barnes from Toronto, Evan Mobley from Cleveland, and Franz Wagner from Orlando. For a draft that has yielded only one All-Star—an injury replacement in the Eastern Conference, no less—this result is noteworthy. It becomes even more remarkable considering that the career leaders in PER and BPM from this draft are … Alperen Şengün.
To be fair, each team did acquire something in return for opting to pay the max: a complete, five-year commitment without a player option. (All four maximum contracts share this characteristic.)
Conversely, each team also sacrificed some potential upside associated with the 25 percent-of-cap rookie max by upgrading to a supermax if their player earns an All-NBA selection. While this is indeed a victory lap scenario if the player performs well enough to achieve that, it also diminishes the initial deal’s upside. At least we can commend Cleveland and Orlando for capping the supermax increase at 27.5 percent of the cap (as opposed to the maximum of 30 percent) should Mobley or Wagner secure a spot on the third-team All-NBA, much like Julius Randle did.
Ultimately, from a broader perspective, all these teams made solid to excellent selections during the 2021 draft, resulting in these four players; cheers all around. However, transitioning from a rookie contract to a max deal is significant, as a team’s max players are expected to be stars. We have yet to reach that milestone: Cunningham possesses a negative career BPM, while Wagner’s is a marginal plus-0.1. Additionally, Wagner, Mobley, and Barnes all face considerable uncertainties regarding their shooting capabilities. We can certainly anticipate further growth from each in the upcoming years. Nonetheless, if their performance does not significantly improve over the next 18 months, the value of their contracts will face challenges, especially in the initial extension year of 2025-26.
What makes this quartet of max extensions so peculiar is the existence of alternative successful strategies that teams have employed in similar situations. Remember, negotiations are permitted, and just as crucially, teams have the option to hold off. One year prior, Philadelphia remained firm regarding Tyrese Maxey’s extension, capitalizing on the additional cap space resulting from his remarkably low cap hold to acquire George, while subsequently securing Maxey’s signature on a five-year, no-options max deal—even after he made the All-Star team.
There are other cases to consider. New Orleans incorporated non-guarantee clauses in Zion Williamson’s extension after he earned an All-Star selection; the year before, Memphis and Phoenix successfully maintained a firm stance regarding max extensions for Jaren Jackson Jr. and Mikal Bridges, respectively. Moreover, Houston seems to be following a similar approach this summer with Şengün and Jalen Green, the second pick from the 2021 draft.
“`html
As the 2025 offseason approaches, only one other team is expected to have max cap space, which could be used to offer a max contract that the original team would likely match anyway after having their cap space tied up for a week while other free-agent opportunities disappear. So, what exactly is there to fear? Upsetting a player who hasn’t established themselves as a franchise player by not instantly agreeing to compensate them as one?
The potential downside of ending up with a solid player in a less-than-ideal contract situation, similar to Deandre Ayton or Michael Porter Jr., has been significantly underrated, and it seems nobody learned from the Sixers’ experience.
GO DEEPER
Scottie Barnes and Immanuel Quickley will not only define Raptors, but Masai Ujiri
Conversations with individuals across the league suggest that the Raptors organization, which was flawless for half a decade culminating in the 2019 championship, has experienced a bit of a slump over the past five years. Did they lose focus following their title victory? Was it unavoidable that their successful run would encounter some misfortune? Can the metric system be blamed in some way?
Regardless, I’m skeptical that Toronto’s 2024 offseason will be the one to change their fortunes. The rebuilding Raptors extended a two-year, $25 million deal to a 33-year-old Kelly Olynyk, only to witness him struggling during the Olympics; while the Barnes extension (mentioned above) is defensible, it also feels somewhat like a concession.
The most surprising move, however, was Immanuel Quickley’s five-year contract worth $163 million, which can increase to $175 million based on certain incentives.
I believe Quickley is an above-average player; he possesses a good shooting touch, is an underrated defender, and demonstrates a Kyle Lowry-like ability to draw fouls. Advanced metrics favor him, and at the age of 25, he still has room to improve.
That said, his transition from mostly off-ball play in New York to primarily on-ball responsibilities in Toronto was somewhat jarring by the end of last season, more so than his overall statistics suggest. Earning $32.5 million this season places him just below the $35.1 million max for a player with four years of experience; indeed, he could come close to that maximum should his incentives be met.
For a player of Quickley’s quality, that’s quite substantial. He is essentially earning the same amount this year as James Harden!
As is often the case with contracts like this, another question arises: Who exactly was Toronto competing against? Quickley was a restricted free agent, granting the Raptors all the negotiating power; meanwhile, I find it challenging to identify a competitor willing to offer him a deal anywhere near this value on an offer sheet.
One argument for possibly committing to such a large contract involves a strategy Toronto opted not to pursue. The Raptors could have followed the Sixers’ approach (as noted earlier) by declining Bruce Brown’s $23 million team option, not signing Olynyk, and using Quickley’s low cap hold to position themselves as a team with significant cap space in the market. That would have been the only circumstance in which an early agreement with Quickley—after all cap-space considerations were resolved—might have been genuinely beneficial.
Instead, the Raptors find themselves committed to over $70 million for both Barnes and Quickley in each of the four seasons following the upcoming one. While there are reasons for cautious optimism—like RJ Barrett’s impressive performance, for example—and this same front office has demonstrated its ability to achieve the remarkable in the past, it currently appears that the Raptors have confined themselves to a salary-cap corner without a roster that justifies such a predicament.
“`
of such a commitment.
Bulls forward Patrick Williams takes the ball up the court against the Oklahoma City Thunder. (Kamil Krzaczynski / USA Today)
Tired: Criticizing Chicago for failing to obtain picks in the Caruso trade. Wired: Overlooking Chicago’s hefty five-year, $90 million investment in Williams, which includes a player option for the fifth year.
While I appreciate Chicago’s decision to pivot towards younger talent, it seems like a move they should have made a year earlier. That said, Williams was awarded this contract based on being the fourth overall pick in the 2020 draft, and I find myself grappling with the rationale behind it.
Williams embodies a player whose potential is captivating; however, the reality of his performance is far less enticing. At 6-foot-7, he is an athletic forward with a career 3-point shooting percentage of 41%. Oh yes, count me in!
Yet, Williams has not attempted enough 3-pointers to truly instill fear in opposing defenses as a floor spacer (averaging only 6.1 3s per 100 possessions last season). This could be because he excels more in catch-and-shoot corner 3s than from other areas or off the dribble. (His career percentage for corner 3s stands at an impressive 44.6%, whereas he is only at 38.8% from other locations.) It’s also reasonable to suggest that a shift in Chicago’s overall offensive strategy could enhance his opportunities for 3-point shots.
As a player with low usage, Williams tends to take too many shots from less-than-ideal spots. Despite his athleticism, fewer than half of his 2-point attempts come at the basket. He lacks the ball-handling skills to create his own shot efficiently and often struggles to process the game in real time. Consequently, he rarely draws fouls and often resorts to long 2-point attempts after just one dribble.
This leads to uninspiring overall statistics: an 11.0 PER, 55.3% true shooting percentage, and a minus-2.3 BPM last season, reflecting similar results over his previous three seasons. Even with his athletic build, he is just an average defender and his rebounding efforts are notably weak (with a 7.9% rebound rate last season, which barely puts him ahead of Kyrie Irving and Damian Lillard).
The decision to re-sign Williams was not merely a matter of paperwork; Chicago could have secured Harrison Barnes along with a free pick swap with Sacramento as part of the DeMar DeRozan deal had they opted against re-signing Williams. (Faced with carrying Williams’ contract, adding Barnes would have severely impacted the Bulls’ financial flexibility, placing them deep into luxury tax territory; this is essentially a no-go for Chicago’s ownership, despite being in the league’s third-largest market.)
It can be argued that with Williams turning 23 this summer, there is still room for growth, but this agreement compensates him
as though it’s a sure thing he’ll get significantly better. It feels like a big leap of faith when he’s been there four years and barely improved at all.
There was definitely a number at which it made sense with Williams, but five years and $90 million with a player option isn’t it. And if another rival wanted to pay him that money … let them. It wasn’t any kind of existential threat to the Bulls.
GO DEEPER
To become more than a 30-win team, the Bulls will need a few breakout players
Max Christie was a bit of a cause célèbre for Lakers fans last season in a backup-quarterback kind of way. He was always the guy fans wanted to play instead of whatever mediocre veteran happened to be sabotaging L.A.’s second unit that night.
The problem was that A) they actually tried him quite a bit (944 minutes across 67 games), and B) he wasn’t any good (8.4 PER, minus-3.6 BPM), such that C) he couldn’t crack the full-strength rotation of what was arguably the worst bench in the league. Thus, it was a bit shocking to see the Lakers commit to a four-year, $32 million free-agent deal to bring him back, one that included a fourth-year player option. Talking to some other people around the league, I don’t think I’m alone in this opinion.
Christie is only 21, had an excellent 2023 summer league and is a good athlete. He has the basic, hazy outlines of a 3-and-D guy. Paying him room-exception type money still feels like a reach when actual 3-and-D guys struggled to get any more than that this summer, with the player option as an exclamation point. Nonetheless, in a Washington Wizards-type rebuilding situation, you might be more inclined to look the other way and try to take the long view.
That is … not the Lakers’ situation. What made this move particularly notable was that it took the Lakers out of other scenarios in free agency. Any team with LeBron James and Anthony Davis needs to be all-in on right now, and the Lakers seemingly passed up a few other opportunities to go in that direction. (We aren’t tapping their phones, so we don’t know exactly what they could have done, but they had three first-round picks and matching salary lying around this June. Who knows, maybe they still do something minutes after this article publishes.)
From that perspective, Christie was another opportunity cost, because the $7.1 million cap number for Christie essentially took the Lakers out of using their taxpayer midlevel exception while still staying below the second apron. (That latter consideration was necessary to keep any realistic in-season trade flexibility alive, which is why James took a slight haircut off the max on his new deal.)
The $5.2 million taxpayer MLE could have been used to target badly needed bench upgrades instead of running it back with almost entirely the same group. Lakers exceptionalism has its limits, but a small-ish exception like this, historically, has been a much more valuable chip in L.A. than in other places, because A) it’s the Lakers, and B) the role is to play next to James and hit fungoes. Even at the risk of Christie walking, that seemed like the better gamble at this point in the roster’s life cycle.
I’ll back off on this somewhat if L.A. ends up finding another way to a significant roster upgrade, especially if it doesn’t take the Lakers until February to find it. But right now, it’s the fifth and final member of my “all-under-scrutinized” summer transactions.
(Top photo of Immanuel Quickley and Max Christie: Mark Blinch, Ronald Martinez / Getty Images)
“`html
Under-Scrutinized Moves of the NBA Offseason: Examining Potential Pitfalls
Introduction to the NBA Offseason Dynamics
The NBA offseason is often a whirlwind of trades, signings, and strategic decisions that can alter the landscape of the league. While high-profile moves capture the headlines, there are under-scrutinized moves that may pose significant risks. This article explores these decisions, shedding light on potential pitfalls that teams might overlook amid the excitement of roster changes.
Understanding the Under-Scrutinized Moves
Under-scrutinized moves refer to trades, signings, or strategic decisions that, while seemingly minor or overshadowed, carry significant implications for a team’s long-term performance. These moves can range from signing younger players to risky trades involving established stars. Recognizing these decisions often provides insight into a team’s future trajectory.
Key Examples of Under-Scrutinized Moves
- Signing Young Prospects: Teams often invest in young, unproven talent with high potential. However, these moves can backfire if the player does not develop as expected.
- Overlooking Salary Cap Implications: Teams may sign players without fully considering how it impacts their salary cap flexibility, leading to future restrictions.
- Trading Away Veteran Leadership: While chasing youth, teams may undervalue the importance of veteran presence, which can lead to a lack of guidance for younger players.
- Ignoring Team Chemistry: Acquiring top talent does not guarantee success if the new additions disrupt existing team dynamics.
Examining Potential Pitfalls in Depth
1. The Risk of Relying on Young Talent
While investing in young prospects can yield high rewards, the risk of a player not reaching their potential is significant. Teams must evaluate:
- Player Development: Are there sufficient resources for player development?
- Coaching Stability: Does the coaching staff have a track record of developing young players?
The failure to provide the right environment can lead to wasted investments and unmet expectations.
2. Salary Cap Mismanagement
In the heat of the offseason, teams may make impulsive decisions that affect long-term financial flexibility. Key considerations include:
- Future Contracts: How do current signings affect future cap space?
- Trade Value: Will newly signed players retain or lose trade value over time?
Misjudgments in this area can lead to a lack of maneuverability in future seasons, hampering a team’s ability to compete.
3. Value of Veteran Presence
As teams transition to younger rosters, the loss of veteran leadership can be a hidden pitfall. Important facets include:
- Mentorship: How well do veterans mentor younger players?
- Influence on Culture: Do veterans help maintain a positive team culture?
Teams often underestimate the intangible benefits that seasoned players bring, which can affect team morale and performance.
4. Balancing Talent with Team Chemistry
Bringing in star players can be exhilarating, but it’s vital to consider how these moves affect existing relationships within the team. Key questions to ponder include:
- Playing Style Compatibility: How does the new player fit into the team’s established system?
- Leadership Dynamics: Will the new addition disrupt the existing leadership hierarchy?
Disruption in team chemistry can lead to conflicts and decreased performance on the court.
Benefits and Practical Tips for Teams
Understanding these pitfalls can guide teams in making informed decisions during the offseason. Some practical tips include:
- Conduct Thorough Scouting: Invest in scouting to ensure players fit the team’s needs and culture.
- Evaluate Financial Implications: Always forecast the financial impact of signings and trades to maintain flexibility.
- Foster Team Cohesion: Organize team-building activities to improve chemistry before the season starts.
Case Studies of Past Offseason Decisions
Case Study 1: The Brooklyn Nets’ Big Three
In an attempt to form a superteam, the Nets acquired stars Kyrie Irving and Kevin Durant. However, the absence of veteran leadership and the reliance on a new system disrupted team chemistry, leading to inconsistent performances.
Case Study 2: The Philadelphia 76ers and Markelle Fultz
The 76ers’ decision to draft Markelle Fultz over established talent raised eyebrows. Fultz struggled to meet expectations, showcasing the risk of banking on unproven youth without proper developmental support.
First-Hand Experience: Insights from NBA Executives
NBA executives often share valuable insights about decision-making during the offseason. For instance, one executive noted, “You have to balance the excitement of talent acquisition with the reality of team dynamics. Sometimes, the best move is to hold onto what you have.” This highlights the importance of strategic thinking beyond the initial allure of big names.
Conclusion: Navigating the NBA Offseason Wisely
Understanding the potential pitfalls associated with under-scrutinized moves can be pivotal for teams looking to build sustainable success. By focusing on cohesive strategy, financial prudence, and team dynamics, organizations can navigate the offseason more effectively.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What are the most common pitfalls in the NBA offseason?
The most common pitfalls include mismanagement of salary cap space, underestimating the importance of veteran leadership, and neglecting team chemistry when acquiring new talent.
How can teams ensure they maximize their offseason moves?
Teams can maximize their moves by conducting thorough scouting, understanding the financial implications of their decisions, and fostering team cohesion through activities and communication.
Why is team chemistry crucial in the NBA?
Team chemistry is crucial in the NBA as it directly affects performance, communication on the court, and overall team morale, which can lead to better results during the season.
What lessons can be learned from past NBA offseason decisions?
Past decisions teach us that not all high-profile moves guarantee success. It’s imperative to consider long-term implications, team fit, and the importance of mentorship and leadership.
“`
