Daily Thunder.com

By the way...it was the only comment I made. I don't have a big opinion in this debate. I found your double post kind of humorous because they really seemed to be very contradictory - like you thought the first post was unnecessarily harsh and wanted to come off it a little bit.

@Sammy
The first is tearing him down. The second is "I like him!" Context notwithstanding, dude.

There is probably never a time when the salary structure is perfectly aligned but hypothetically say that you want to get or get to the point where you have the following

1 max guy
2-3 guys above the MLE
4-5 vets between $2-5 million
4 rookie contracts (or low wage vets)
a couple of minimum contracts

The major task is assigning tier 2 or 3 contracts to the other starters besides Durant and the first 3 guys off the bench within whatever budget they have.

Letting Durant and Westbrook both be off the court at the same time against a good team or in a tight game doesn't seem that wise. Looks like there was at least 5-6 minutes per game were that was allowed last season. Westbrook is better handling the non-Durant time. Let Maynor do it some I guess for the experience and as a test but he'll need to improve on team offensive leadership in that circumstance.

@J.G. Marking

You can't let Jax out word you... c'mon. :)

@John-o
Hmmm, okay, I can see how discrediting players because their vets and have inflated contracts is a negative on good discussion as it should obviously come into discussion anyway.

Mark! :@DXL
To be fair, I don’t think it makes sense to think about players separate from their contracts but that wasn’t the conversation for whatever reason (hyperbole I guess.)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I've lost complete track of what we were even really talking about in the beginning at this point since those of us still here didn't even start the fire.

But it's always burning, I tell you, always burning...

@J.G. Marking

I'm not saying he becomes useless - I'm just saying that his contribution to overall team success should not decrease just because he signs a contract.

In my opinion Durant is severely underpaid. I don't like the concept that he is viewed as a better "piece" to a team. After all, Durant couldn't negotiate his salary like Big-Dog Robinson, and thus is missing out on a few million dollars.

The cost vs. contribution thing wasn't a hot button topic until it was used to discredit meaningful discussions on players. Nobody liked how the notion that "Hinrich and Sessions are overpaid and less useful" was used to discredit valid player analysis.

I also don't like to penalize older players just because young players are getting taken advantage of under the rules imposed by the Players Union.

@DXL

To be fair, I don't think it makes sense to think about players separate from their contracts but that wasn't the conversation for whatever reason (hyperbole I guess.)

Without Durant the team offensive production is horrendous with either PG, but led by Maynor is 7 points worse per 48.

haha, minus the last "I honestly didn't think" as it seems my circut boards are becoming fried.

I noted before how Maynor plays with Durant a lot less.

When Maynor gets to play alongside Durant the offense is only 0.6 pts worse per 48 mi8nutes than with Westbrook (not adjusted for the impact of any other differences).

Jax Raging Bile Duct :JG YOUR OPINION DOESN’T COUNT BECAUSE YOU USE TOO MANY BIG WORDS!
[insert angst and ire emoticon here]

I'm still certain your full name of Jax "The Human Thesaurus" Raging Bile Duct is still in tact.

...hey, I didn't know you could insert those sweet new emoticons yourself?! :)

@John-o
Yes and no.

No to them suddenly becoming useless. Obviously that's absurd.

Yes to their value to the team being negatively affected if they suddenly cost more than their contributions/market value dictates.

Vets are more expensive. Rookies are not. If you can find a rookie who performs in a similar way as a vet, you take on their lesser contract. If you can't, then you have to assess how much value that vet's contribution will be relative to the cost of their price tag.

I really didn't think this aspect of cost vs contribution was really a hot button issue.

I honestly didn't think

JG YOUR OPINION DOESN'T COUNT BECAUSE YOU USE TOO MANY BIG WORDS!

[insert angst and ire emoticon here]

Good points all, contracts are coloring my perception of Maynor. If Maynor were making 7 million a year I'd be pretty unhappy with him right now. He certainly isn't as good as Hinrich.

Mark! :@Jax Raging Bile Duct
I don’t want to reiterate all the Zzzz that’s been discussed about Maynor, but I would like to say that Jax is the man.
Very succinct understanding. It’s obvious you talk to people in venues outside the internet. Your wisdom will be overlooked and misunderstood immediately.
But I enjoyed it.

Hmmm, I'm wondering if I should feel offended because I am quite incapable of understanding wisdom and overlook a perspective I've already described as comprehensible and well postulated.

@Mark!

Ha! Thanks. Now if only my boss and my wife felt the way you do. ;)

JG - so when a player comes off of his Rookie Scale contract and signs his first big one - does he automatically become less useful to NBA teams? From one day to the next he suddenly costs more, but his ability does not change when he inks the fat contract.

I think OKC is an exceptionally atypical team and its fans are a bit spoiled in terms of the success they had with their spending and overall team youth. To that point, I think OKC has the highest value per dollar paid for their players.

Yes, there are a few instances of BillyBall (if you haven't read Moneyball go find the book on Amazon), but those cases aren't sustainable. You often need to spend money to keep your talent and in many cases you'll need expensive middle-tier guys to fill their roles since you can't consistently count on young guys.

What normally happens in the vast majority of successful NBA teams is that...

A) There is a superstar player (or two) getting paid a ton
B) There is are one or 2 skilled veterans who complement this superstar player
C) Capable role players who can be relied upon to fill their role consistently
D) Random bench guys who are great in key situations
E) No reliance on filler-rookies and young guys waiting to develop

These teams are consistently potent and always in contention. If Duncan were a "project" big the Spurs wouldn't have won their titles. If the Pistons hadn't paid some bucks for Sheed they wouldn't have had a shot. The Celtics need 3 future HoF players to do their runs.

The alternative is teams like the LBJ-and-scrubs and Iverson-improbable teams that get smoked in the playoffs and fail to maintain prominence. There's a reason Fisher and Horry were valuable expensive vets versus players like Courtney Lee and Serge Ibaka.

@J.G. Marking

Okay. But this was also a top 5 list. You don't take contracts into account when making top 5 lists unless the contract is mentioned as a requirement upfront.

Name the top 5 backup PG's in the league today, GO!

vs

Name the top 5 most financially valuable backup PG's in the league today, GO!

Those are two different lists. Two different sets of criteria. Every GM in the league wants his team to be made up of guys on the first list. You'd love to have the best talent at every position. But every GM knows you can't construct a team that way, so they have to pay attention to money, and their lists change.

@Jax Raging Bile Duct

I don't want to reiterate all the Zzzz that's been discussed about Maynor, but I would like to say that Jax is the man.

Very succinct understanding. It's obvious you talk to people in venues outside the internet. Your wisdom will be overlooked and misunderstood immediately.

But I enjoyed it.

@Jax Raging Bile Duct
I understand your perspective, however I think you're discounting the fluidity of conversations. A discussion may begin in one context, however the second a "Name me such and such teams who wouldn't rather have Maynor than so and so as a backup PG," I think more than just talent is not only a context that includes discussions of value, but easily evolves in that direction.

The natural evolution of conversation would then imply that discussions would not remain static.

@J.G. Marking

From a GM's perspective, yes, you're on point. And we talk contracts around here a lot. But the flow of the conversation wasn't in that direction until it was used as a rebuttal.

This wouldn't be an issue if people posted their compliments like so...

"Wow! This Summer League offense of ours really bogs down when Eric Maynor (who has a cheap contract) is on the bench"

Or

"Eric Maynor with another tear drop. Every time the bobcats make a big score Maynor comes right back with an answer, and a cheap answer too, did you realize he's on a rookie contract?"

The contract is a secondary issue to the main point. Yes, it can become THE POINT in discussing Maynor given certain circumstances (budget, GM perspective, etc...) but in this case it was just about the talent at first.

@Jax Raging Bile Duct

@John-o
See, and I suppose this is where I differ. In my mind, a player's contract is just as important as their talent regarding value to a team so perhaps I was wrong in assuming other individuals thought the same way from the get-go, but to disagree with Jax, I don't think there are 30 GM's who would prefer Hinrich to Maynor BECAUSE of the fact that I can't think of anyone who eagerly wants to pay a backup PG more than the majority of their starters make.

With that understanding in mind, the discussion of cost versus contribution is not a red herring with no bearing on a talent discussion regarding a player's role/value to a team. In fact, it is just as essential as the player's talent itself.

And I have to disagree with John-o, if the goal is to compare players IN TERMS OF THEIR ROLE/VALUE TO A SPECIFIC TEAM, then salary must come into play because of the fact that there is no consistent relationship of dollars earned to usefulness. Such is the price of a soft cap.

And I guarantee you will hear a Durant versus Rudy Gay discussion revolving around their upcoming salaries. In fact, we already have.

J.G. Marking :@Jax
Raging Bile Duct
Trying to catch back up but I’m going to have to chime in if this is what you intended to disagree with.
Discussing a player’s talents in relation to his cost is not just valid and reasonable, but is really what makes a professional basketball franchise elite.
Example: Joe Johnson, no one here would deny he’s one of the best SG’s in the NBA, but bring up his max contract and, with good reason, there will be an outcry of “he’s not worth a max contract.”
A player’s cost versus contribution is about as vital as it gets relating to worth and value to an organization. So I just don’t see how it’s unfair to first discuss Maynor’s talents and then use his price as well for a justification of him not being “an ordinary backup PG.”

The problem occurs when people try to quantify "NBA usefulness per dollar right now" across players of different age groups and salaries.

If the goal is to compare players - salary cannot come into play because there is no consistent relationship of dollars earned to usefulness. At that point the dollars earned are a function of the particular GM whims or market influences.

You do not want "high potential" rookies to always be favored in their comparisons because the rookie is cheap and there's no way a heady/consistent veteran is worth his inflated salary.

To that point, do you ever hear LBJ versus Durant discussions revolve around their upcoming salaries? If someone brings up salary they're introducing a red herring to derail the comparison.

@J.G. Marking

The original request from The DON had nothing to do with contracts. Then, when people listed guys like Hinrich (who is obviously better), they were discredited because of his contract. Every GM in the league would rather have Hinrich than Maynor as a backup.

You have to create a situation where Maynor is preferred to Hinrich, and it isn't a situation involving talent.

I'm saying that if contracts were a part of the discussion, that should have been stated upfront. Just because Maynor is more affordable than Hinrich, doesn't mean that Maynor is a better player, and that was the intent of the original request.

@Jax Raging Bile Duct
Trying to catch back up but I'm going to have to chime in if this is what you intended to disagree with.

Discussing a player's talents in relation to his cost is not just valid and reasonable, but is really what makes a professional basketball franchise elite.

Example: Joe Johnson, no one here would deny he's one of the best SG's in the NBA, but bring up his max contract and, with good reason, there will be an outcry of "he's not worth a max contract."

A player's cost versus contribution is about as vital as it gets relating to worth and value to an organization. So I just don't see how it's unfair to first discuss Maynor's talents and then use his price as well for a justification of him not being "an ordinary backup PG."

Sammy :@DXL

That’s just patently absurd. If Mullens came into summer league and went absolutely beast mode in the paint, grabbing every rebound and pass and played fantastic defense, I’d be ecstatic. Likewise if Maynor comes in next year and starts hitting his floater with consistency and 3s at 40 percent. I’d much rather be wrong about a 60 win team than right about a 40 win team.

he is talking about 1 person specifically. He already replied to him.

I mean come on, how often did you see Maynor make a mistake then get pulled right after? quite often.

@DXL
That's just patently absurd. If Mullens came into summer league and went absolutely beast mode in the paint, grabbing every rebound and pass and played fantastic defense, I'd be ecstatic. Likewise if Maynor comes in next year and starts hitting his floater with consistency and 3s at 40 percent. I'd much rather be wrong about a 60 win team than right about a 40 win team.

justin :@dream
catcher
He’s not that great a passer… he makes the ‘obvious’ plays, doesn’t make mistakes with them, and that has value. But he doesn’t have ethereal passing skills. I think Russ is better at making the less obvious plays, for example. Or the tough passes.
I think you’re seeing a lot of what you want to see in Eric Maynor and not what’s really there. His productivity and the team’s productivity when he plays does not support your assertion that he would be a ‘decent starter’.

He does have great passing skills, just watch a few Utah games before he got traded. That system shows off the PG's creativity. Russ also had a much bigger leash when on the court which meant he could take more chances.

DXL :There’s a contingent on this site that hates to see progress, or signs of development, from the younger role players (like Maynor) on the Thunder because that would disprove their big idea: that development isn’t linear, that the Thunder must sign or trade for a large-salaried player to get over the hump.
Maybe no other championship team in NBA history has developed all its core players from within. But I think the Thunder are going to do it.

"hates to see progress" wow.

the question is not who "likes progress". The problem is that some see progress - others don't . . . progress can definitely be subjective . . .

Dangit, I have to drive home from work and I miss all this good discussion!

DXL :There’s a contingent on this site that hates to see progress, or signs of development, from the younger role players (like Maynor) on the Thunder because that would disprove their big idea: that development isn’t linear, that the Thunder must sign or trade for a large-salaried player to get over the hump.
Maybe no other championship team in NBA history has developed all its core players from within. But I think the Thunder are going to do it.

I've been a huge Russell Westbrook proponent, Kevin Durant proponent (when he was being criticized last year for his +/-. I defend James Harden on this site continually, and I'm high on Serge Ibaka.

There's a difference between 'hating to see progress' and 'being realistic about expectations'. I think there's a contingent on every team's site that feels everything is going to go right with their players and prospects. That's fine, and it's part of being a fan for a lot of people. I prefer a different, moderate view point on progression and player development. Feel free to disagree with me on that all you want, as you know I'm happy to discuss it ad nauseum...

I would be thrilled if everything shook out perfectly, Ibaka and Harden become All Stars, and Sam Presti builds the team of the century using draft picks instead of cap space. I just don't think that's a realistic expectation. Even if I did, that doesn't figure into how I feel about our players.

@dream catcher

He's not that great a passer... he makes the 'obvious' plays, doesn't make mistakes with them, and that has value. But he doesn't have ethereal passing skills. I think Russ is better at making the less obvious plays, for example. Or the tough passes.

I think you're seeing a lot of what you want to see in Eric Maynor and not what's really there. His productivity and the team's productivity when he plays does not support your assertion that he would be a 'decent starter'.

DXL :
There’s a contingent on this site that hates to see progress, or signs of development, from the younger role players (like Maynor) on the Thunder because that would disprove their big idea: that development isn’t linear, that the Thunder must sign or trade for a large-salaried player to get over the hump.
Maybe no other championship team in NBA history has developed all its core players from within. But I think the Thunder are going to do it.

I agree with that.

@Jax Raging Bile Duct
he wants to start, so i could see him not wanting an extension or signing a qualfying offer in hopes that we dont match his RFA offers

There's a contingent on this site that hates to see progress, or signs of development, from the younger role players (like Maynor) on the Thunder because that would disprove their big idea: that development isn't linear, that the Thunder must sign or trade for a large-salaried player to get over the hump.

Maybe no other championship team in NBA history has developed all its core players from within. But I think the Thunder are going to do it.

Keith :
Right now, not judging by his upside or future potential, not judging by what other teams do or do not have, Maynor is an average backup at best. As it’s been shown, he was a poor shooter and rarely created anything on offense. He plays mistake free, which is great, but given what else he didn’t do, being mistake free doesn’t make him a great player. If you want to say, right now, that Maynor is average, you’re right.
Now, if you want to argue that Maynor should improve from where he started last year. If you want to say he can develop a 3 pt shot and hurt defenses that pay little attention to him. If you want to say he has the capacity to be a starter in this league, that he has moments of wow! that could be developed further, you’re also right.
I don’t even think Justin is saying that Maynor has absolutely no future, only that his play to this point is nothing spectacular.

people keep saying he plays mistake free and that's it. Are you forgetting his great passing skills? So he is a great passer, who also plays mistake free. That's a great backup and a decent starter.

I think the only way Maynor becomes a starter on another team is if the perfect storm of contracts/teams hit at the right time. I could see Maynor starting for the Pacers if they had pulled that trade through with us. Doesn't mean the Pacers preferred Maynor to Drajic or Hill or Hinrich, it's just that those teams weren't in a position to be good trade partners at the time.

Maynor is a 4 year college player who is 23 years old. By all accounts, he has about 2 years to improve, and those improvements will be marginal. Most players improve until they're about 25 years old, but there are diminishing returns of improvement the closer to 25 that player gets.

Will those improvements be enough that Eric will deserve a starting job somewhere? I doubt it. I think if the Thunder wanted to, they could keep Eric as a backup for a long time. He'll be one of the better backup PG's in the league, so I'm sure his contract value will increase, but I don't foresee it being so big that we can't keep him on.

Greg :
Who’s to say Maynor doesn’t produce close to the level of Collison or Lawson given the opportunities and minutes those two saw due to depleted backcourts?

IMO, just watching them when they were playing backup minutes is the easiest way to differentiate their abilities. DC and Lawson play faster than everyone else on the second unit - even when they were facing starters. DC and Lawson can get anywhere on the court. But they're not out of control (well, Lawson is at times) and are executing the offense very well.

The lineup of DC + CP at the same time was stupid though... I'm glad that experiment ended.

The reason I think Maynor is great for our system is that his talent level and basketball IQ fit what OKC wants. He's not a "future star PG" in training who will create PG controversy over playing time.

One of the best backup PGs that I can think of to compare him with is CJ Watson. They are similar but different in terms of how they are excellent backups, but they lack certain traits that would make them elite starters.

For CJ he's an excellent defender and can handle/score/shoot. But he sucks running plays and in the half-court. But Maynor is relatively invisible offensively but does the other team-stuff well.

I'd rather have Maynor over CJ in OKC since they want their second unit to win with fundamentals and execution. But if I wanted my second unit to light it up - I'd rather have CJ.

Assuming there weren't any opportunity costs and cap issues, I'd also rather have a veteran guy like Hinrich over Maynor due to veteran know-how and the ability to guard larger PGs and knock down 3s.

Right now, not judging by his upside or future potential, not judging by what other teams do or do not have, Maynor is an average backup at best. As it's been shown, he was a poor shooter and rarely created anything on offense. He plays mistake free, which is great, but given what else he didn't do, being mistake free doesn't make him a great player. If you want to say, right now, that Maynor is average, you're right.

Now, if you want to argue that Maynor should improve from where he started last year. If you want to say he can develop a 3 pt shot and hurt defenses that pay little attention to him. If you want to say he has the capacity to be a starter in this league, that he has moments of wow! that could be developed further, you're also right.

I don't even think Justin is saying that Maynor has absolutely no future, only that his play to this point is nothing spectacular.

@John-o
Fisher's very old now, therefore Blake replaces him, it's the natural progression. But he's had a hell of a career. It's the kind of career I hope Maynor has: lots of wins, championships, hardnosed play, very limited turnovers, clutch 3-pointers.

@Sammy

Yep...

@Jax Raging Bile Duct

That's a fair summary.

BTW, I'm totally willing to change my tune on Maynor if he starts hitting the 3 with regularity. If he were a 39% 3p shooter, then, yeah, I'd be comfortable calling him one of the best backups in the league. Then I'd look to trade him for a player at a position that's more valuable to the team :)

@justin

True, nothing wrong with polite debate. I'm usually not one to enjoy the whole "where does he rank" subject. It's all speculative and unnecessary and it has a tendency to delve into people who have to be right making the same point over and over and over again.

MB Post: Eric Maynor is a solid backup PG. He's got a great contract for his talents.
ME: Agreed.

MB Post: Eric Maynor is nothing special. We could replace him with any D-League talent.
ME: I think you're selling him a bit short.

MB Post: Eric Maynor should start in the league. He the best backup there is and already better than several starters on a bad teams.
ME: I think you're exaggerating how good he is.

MB Post: ERIC MAYNOR WALKS ON WATER AND IF YOU EVER SAID OTHERWISE I WANT YOU TO SUCK IT AND CRY TO YOUR MOTHERS I'M AWESOME AND YOU'RE NOT.
ME: Alright dude. Take it easy.

To me, that's about all there is to it.

Greg :Who’s to say Maynor doesn’t produce close to the level of Collison or Lawson given the opportunities and minutes those two saw due to depleted backcourts?

Because he's not the same athlete.

There were 83 PG's in the league this year. Here's how Eric Maynor compared to them:

Pts/48: 71st of 83
TO/48: 30 of 83
AST/48: 12 of 83
TS%: 69 of 83
3PT%: 42 of 83
NBA EFF: 56 of 83

Is that really anything special? He has to get his scoring efficiency up if he wants to be a starting PG in this league.

There is really one question that needs to be asked. Who would you rather have as the backup PG for the Thunder... Maynor, Livingston or Watson?