• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Official 2014-15 Charlotte Hornets Thread

4/52 is solid for MKG in the new NBA. Good job Hornets (for a change)
 
Really like that extension. Next summer they have 40 million committed to Kemba, MKG, Kaminsky, Cody, Jeremy Lin, Spencer Hawes.

Salary cap is projected at 90 million, priority one is to basically do what it takes to re-sign Batum as he hopefully has a good bounce back year. Then still lots of cap space.
 
I have no idea why MKG agreed to that number in the coming market, but that's a great deal for the Hornets. He's already basically indispensable to them, and already worth around that money for his current play. If he keeps improving he'll be an absolute bargain in two years. The kid is only 21. And importantly, this does somewhat ease the limit on what they could pay a bounce-back Batum next summer. Think they could convince that guy to sign an extension ahead of time as well?
 
Kevin Pelton wrote a piece today in which he was basically incredulous that MKG took that deal.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
I have no idea why MKG agreed to that number in the coming market, but that's a great deal for the Hornets. He's already basically indispensable to them, and already worth around that money for his current play. If he keeps improving he'll be an absolute bargain in two years. The kid is only 21. And importantly, this does somewhat ease the limit on what they could pay a bounce-back Batum next summer. Think they could convince that guy to sign an extension ahead of time as well?
Click to expand...

You can't sign upcoming UFAs to extensions with a year left. Only rookies between their 3rd and 4th seasons.
 
FckVwls said:
You can't sign upcoming UFAs to extensions with a year left. Only rookies between their 3rd and 4th seasons.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that makes sense. What if they increased the base salary for the still-contracted year -- which they can't by the way, since they're capped out for 15/16 -- and replaced it as part of a longer deal?
 
TownieDeac said:
I'm confused. Doesn't he kinda suck offensively?
Click to expand...

this is a good breakdown of his strengths/weaknesses and how he would have definitely gotten more if he waited til next summer:

For the second time in a week, an NBA player entering the fourth and final year of his rookie contract has reportedly agreed to an extension.

And just like Jonas Valanciunas' four-year extension with the Toronto Raptors announced last week, the amount Michael Kidd-Gilchrist will reportedly get from the Charlotte Hornets -- $52 million over four years, as first reported by Yahoo! Sports -- is surprisingly low.

Fans often want analysts to assess whether a player has made a mistake in signing a contract. I can't say that because I don't know how much Kidd-Gilchrist values playing in Charlotte, how important security is to him or even if he was OK taking less money to help the Hornets fill out their roster.

What I can speak to is whether Kidd-Gilchrist maximized his earnings potential, and the answer to that seems to be a resounding no.

Valuing Kidd-Gilchrist

As with Valanciunas, it's necessary to move past the box score to understand how valuable Kidd-Gilchrist has been and will be over the four seasons covered by his extension (2016-17 through 2019-20, when he'll be 26 at the conclusion of this deal). Last season was the first time Kidd-Gilchrist averaged double-figure scoring, and then just barely -- 10.9 points per game.

While Kidd-Gilchrist dramatically improved the mechanics of his jumper last season, and got better results from midrange, he was still one of the league's weaker offensive perimeter starters. Kidd-Gilchrist neither made nor attempted a 3-pointer all season, a remarkable feat for a starting small forward in this 3-happy age. Without those efficient looks, Kidd-Gilchrist rated lower than league average in both usage rate (using 18.4 percent of Charlotte's plays) and true shooting percentage (.519).
And yet Kidd-Gilchrist still ranked 10th among small forwards in ESPN's real plus-minus (RPM), a hair behind Carmelo Anthony of the New York Knicks. In terms of defensive RPM, Kidd-Gilchrist raked fourth at his position behind three members of the NBA's All-Defensive first team.

Kidd-Gilchrist's RPM doesn't seem to be the product of statistical noise. He has always had a strong defensive reputation, the primary reason he was drafted second overall behind Kentucky teammate Anthony Davis in 2012. And Kidd-Gilchrist ranked 15th in All-Defensive voting, good enough to be part of a mythical third team. (I went a bit further, picking Kidd-Gilchrist to my All-Defensive second team.)

Over the past two seasons, the time Kidd-Gilchrist has missed because of injuries has revealed his value to the team. In 2013-14, according to NBA.com/Stats, the Hornets' defensive rating slipped slightly below league average during the 19 games Kidd-Gilchrist missed with a fractured bone in his left hand. For the year, Charlotte finished with the league's sixth-best defensive rating. Last season, the Hornets were ninth overall in points allowed per 100 possessions but a dismal 27th in the 12 games Kidd-Gilchrist missed in November and December with a stress reaction in his foot.

Charlotte has gone 62-55 (.530) with Kidd-Gilchrist in the lineup the past two seasons and 14-33 (.298) when he has been unavailable to play.

Given that stat, it should be no surprise that projections based on age (Kidd-Gilchrist won't turn 22 for a month), RPM and my box-score-based wins above replacement player stat (where Kidd-Gilchrist inevitable rated more modestly, with 1.4 WARP last season) show his value at more than $40 million over the first two seasons of his extension, during which he'll make approximately $24.25 million, assuming standard 7.5 percent year-to-year raises (2016-17 and 2017-18 salaries based on reported extension and standard raises).

Extensions favoring teams so far

Given Kidd-Gilchrist's value, the Hornets have to be thrilled to lock him up for less than 60 percent of the projected maximum four-year offer sheet worth approximately $90 million he could have received next summer as a restricted free agent. One concern for many teams in extending players this fall is that it might increase the cap space they take up next summer. That won't be the case with Kidd-Gilchrist, whose cap hold as a free agent ($12.7 million) would actually have been larger than his likely salary in the first year of the extension ($11.7 million).

Unlike Valanciunas, who wanted to get a deal done before playing for the Lithuanian national team in EuroBasket, Kidd-Gilchrist didn't necessarily face any pressure to sign a contract now. The timing is unusual. As former Brooklyn Nets executive Bobby Marks noted on Twitter, before this year just three players had signed rookie extensions in August since 2006. It's hard not to believe Kidd-Gilchrist couldn't have gotten a similar or better deal closer to the Nov. 2 deadline for extensions to rookie contracts.

Paradoxically, each unexpectedly low deal we see gives other extension-eligible players more incentive to wait for restricted free agency. Not only have the Valanciunas and Kidd-Gilchrist deals set the market relatively low for extensions, they also reduce the number of contenders for the pile of cash teams will have available to spend next summer. Having them off the market means it's more likely that a desperate team throws a max offer at a player like Harrison Barnes of the Golden State Warriors.

So we'll wait and see how many other players sign rookie extensions between now and Nov. 2. Perhaps Valanciunas and Kidd-Gilchrist are just outliers who value security more than their risk-taking peers. So far, however, their extensions suggest that players are undervaluing their own worth on the market.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not really asking about market value, doesn't he kinda suck offensively?
 
yeah, kind of... but he's younger than the rookie we just drafted and if someone was great offensively and kind of sucked defensively they'd probably get a max contract.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
Thanks, that makes sense. What if they increased the base salary for the still-contracted year -- which they can't by the way, since they're capped out for 15/16 -- and replaced it as part of a longer deal?
Click to expand...

No, contracts in NBA cannot be amended in any way (with the one exception I guess if you waive and stretch someone). You have to wait until the player is a free agent to re-sign except for this one exception (after 3rd year of rookie deal before RFA)'
 
I know next to nothing about roster optimization, and I guess if this is a team friendly deal, you can overlook big weaknesses in a young player. I'm just (naively, probably) thinking in terms of building your best possible roster in the time just before the cap goes way up, whether offensive skills are more valuable than cap flexibility.
 
he really is a + in just about every category (rebounding, defense, transition, ball handling) other than shooting where he was unbelievably bad and improved to almost average there last year.

people bring up tony allen but he's like tony allen except way bigger and more versatile defensively (can effectively guard 1-4) and young enough to still hope for continued shooting improvement.

and the team seems to be consciously building with frontcourt shooting to make the roster work and achieve spacing
 
TownieDeac said:
I'm not really asking about market value, doesn't he kinda suck offensively?
Click to expand...

Actually the team is slightly better on offense with him on the floor. On defense, it's a massive positive difference. And averaging 11 PPG as an NBA wing at 21 isn't all that crappy, not mention the 7.5 boards and all-NBA level D. He just can't shoot 3s.

Here's a very basic summary of his value:

When MKG is off the floor, the Hornets give up an average of 104.1 points per 100 possessions, and a much improved 96.3 points per 100 possessions when he's on the floor. On offense, where he supposedly brings the team down, the Hornets are three points better per 100 possessions than they are without him. Yes, when MKG is in the game, the Hornets offense gets better.

Now maybe none of these fancy stats matter, and at the end of the day it's wins and losses that matter. Well in games that MKG missed, Charlotte went 6-21, and with him healthy they went a much better 27-28. Now obviously the sample size of games played is much larger than games missed, but the one without is just large enough that it can't be ignored. Either way, it's pretty clear that the Hornets are better with MKG than they are without him.

http://www.atthehive.com/2015/8/25/...contract-is-a-steal-for-the-charlotte-hornets
 
He also knows his limitations. The jumpers that he takes are ones that he has a chance of making; he isn't like CMM hoisting from behind the arc hoping that it goes in out of sheer luck. I think he is a really good player and a really good starter whom they were right to lock up for the future, but he puts a lot of pressure on the rest of the lineup to contain a high scoring wing or PF. Which they haven't found yet (cough, Winslow, cough).
 
Not fair to criticize CMM for shot selection on a team full of guys who cant shoot and he get the ball late in the shot clock.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
He also knows his limitations. The jumpers that he takes are ones that he has a chance of making; he isn't like CMM hoisting from behind the arc hoping that it goes in out of sheer luck. I think he is a really good player and a really good starter whom they were right to lock up for the future, but he puts a lot of pressure on the rest of the lineup to contain a high scoring wing or PF. Which they haven't found yet (cough, Winslow, cough).
Click to expand...

Que? Winslow's one acknowledged limitation is his offensive ceiling. Frank's known ability is scoring the ball from everywhere. You can make a lot of arguments about the pick, but "offensive fit next to MKG" isn't one of them. A deep-shooting stretch four is perfect.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top