fishmike wrote:WaltLongmire wrote:fishmike wrote:joec32033 wrote:RonRon wrote:this is something Briggs did get rightIMO, he is Allan Houston with a much more complete game on both OFF and DEF/versatility on both ends as well
While he is a VERY GOOD SHOOTER that can play off the ball and also shoot off the dribble, some post up abilities, that can be ELITE
Allan was a bit more accomplished when he got his first contract from the Knicks, no?
Crabbe 23 years old: 10ppg, 2.7rebs, 1.2assists, 38% from 3
Houston 23 yrs old: 14ppg, 2rebs, 2assists, 42% from 3Crabbe year 3 in NBA: 10ppg, 2.7rebs, 1.2assists, 38% from 3 (23 years old)
Houston year 3 in NBA: 19.7ppg, 3.7rebs, 3assists, .43$ from 3 (24 years old)
And Houston played when you could hand check.
Im sorry but the Houston comparisons are so far off its insulting. Houston emerged after 3 years as a premier shooting guard and one of the best shooters in the league. Crabbe has emerged as a bench player who has a good shot.
Can Crabbe breakout? Sure. Can he become and all star? Anything is possible. Has he shown that? Not a bit. Pretty much end of story on that. Crabbe does NOT project to be an all star, especially if Allan Houston is the player you are using for that projection.
Young players are drafted based on potential, and you can kind of understand it to some extent, because they have no NBA experience, but it seems a bit foolish to give a guy $80+M over 4 years based on potential, for the most part.
I suppose if Crabbbe had averaged 35MPG last year and scored 20PPG with 4 APG, and done it on a team without one of the most high scoring backcourt pairs in the league, I could see giving him the contract the Nets offered him, but he has not even been a full time starter in the NBA up to this point. I mean Harrison Barnes was overpaid, but at least he was a starter the last few years.
We will see if this was a mistake by the Nets...glad the Knicks did not make the offer, though.
Walt that is just logic pure and simple.
The thing with logic, however, is it depends on everything else around it following rules of logic.
The Nets position is highly illogical.
- They have no long-term contracts.
- They (effectively) have no 1st round draft picks for 3 years in a row.
- As a result, they have no motivation to tank.
- They have little talent and little payroll.
- They have no standard means to attract established high-end free agent talent in the near future.
- They have a rapidly escalating salary floor they need to meet over the next 1-4 years that they won't approach via standard means.
This perfect storm of unusual circumstances make vastly overpaying for unproven young player actually logical for them, which is why they're doing it.
There is little pragmatic downside to them other than the principle of overpaying for players that might not prove worth it.
A review of their actual circumstances reveals even if Crabbe is a total bust, the Nets will likely still struggle to meet the salary floor. His salary simply won't ever be prohibitive or hampering, just likely inappropriate.