Title: A Shift in Free Agency Dynamics Challenges Traditional Notions of “Losers”
Subtitle: Fewer player movements and smarter contract decisions complicate the concept of free agency “losers”
In the ever-evolving landscape of NBA free agency, the idea of labeling teams as “losers” has become more complex in recent years. The rapid changes have made it harder to truly gauge which teams have come out on the short end of the stick. With fewer star players changing teams via free agency and a rise in prudent contract negotiations, the dynamics of free agency have shifted significantly.
In the past, teams were often left in a bind when a key player departed without compensation. However, the new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and teams becoming more astute about long-term contracts have reduced the number of irrational and overpriced free agent signings. The 2019 season marked the end of the era of unextendable contracts under the old CBA. Since then, cap space has been utilized differently, leading to two prevalent situations in today’s free agency: teams being restricted by rules and tax situations, and teams heavily investing in their own players rather than seeking external talent.
While it is premature to dub these teams as “losers,” a few organizations might not be entirely satisfied with their free agency moves so far. The Toronto Raptors stand out as the top team facing challenges due to the loss of Fred VanVleet and the absence of a viable replacement. Despite signing Dennis Schröder as a temporary fix, losing an All-Star caliber player is a significant setback. The Houston Rockets’ reasonable offer to VanVleet was something the Raptors should have prepared for, considering their cap space situation.
A potential setback for the Raptors was Gary Trent Jr. opting into his deal, which complicated the financial equation of re-signing VanVleet without surpassing the tax line. Acquiring VanVleet would have necessitated exhausting their full midlevel exception (MLE) before even completing their roster. The hidden costs involved in matching the max offer for VanVleet were substantial and might have required additional efforts to reduce the tax hit for a team stuck in the middle. The Raptors’ ability to reshape their roster, potentially by trading Pascal Siakam or O.G. Anunoby, could determine if the VanVleet deal was a missed opportunity or a calculated move.
The New Orleans Pelicans made a similar tactical error by declining the fourth-year option on Herb Jones, resulting in an increased financial burden that the team may struggle to bear. Even after waiving Garrett Temple, the Pelicans project to be over the tax line, putting them in a position where they might need to trade Kira Lewis Jr. or Jonas Valančiūnas to avoid paying luxury tax. The Pelicans could have used a portion of their MLE to sign a veteran guard, reducing their reliance on inexperienced players in high-minute roles. While Jones might have commanded a higher salary next year, historically, the MLE has been the limit for players who lack shooting abilities.
The Sacramento Kings, similar to the Pelicans, made a questionable move by renegotiating and extending Domantas Sabonis’ contract for $195 million. The Kings committed to an inflated sum, above what any other team could have offered Sabonis next summer. This decision seemed unwarranted for a non-A-list player who plays as a center, a position that does not draw significant interest. Paying Sabonis a four-year max contract at this stage, and surrendering a first-round pick to create cap space, raises questions about the Kings’ bidding strategy. The significant financial commitment may not have been necessary, given the lack of suitors and Sabonis’ limitations on both offense and defense.
Jerami Grant’s contract with the Portland Trail Blazers is also subject to scrutiny. The five-year, $160 million deal made assumptions about his ability to support Damian Lillard. While opinions may differ, Grant’s deal appears objectively worse on multiple levels compared to Sabonis’. The Blazers made the substantial investment in Grant with hopes of providing ample assistance to Lillard, but the long-term implications of the contract warrant caution.
In conclusion, the landscape of free agency has changed, challenging traditional notions of winners and losers. The reduced movement of star players and a more cautious approach to contracts have reshaped the dynamics of the offseason. While some teams may not be entirely satisfied with their free agency moves so far, it remains to be seen how these decisions will pan out in the future. With trade season still ongoing and key free agents still available, the final verdict on these teams’ offseason performances is far from certain.