|ESPN.com: NBA||[Print without images]|
Are Tiago Splitter, Kevin Martin, David West, Tony Allen and J.J. Redick worth the deals they will reportedly sign? Our 5-on-5 crew weighs in.
Israel Gutierrez, ESPN.com: Good deal. James Harden had a bad performance against the Heat in the 2012 Finals too. It doesn't mean he was unworthy of the contract he signed with the Rockets. Splitter is a quality center in a league where there aren't a ton of them, so $9 million a year is beyond reasonable. Plus, the Spurs still have some flexibility to add to a team that was seconds away from a championship.
Zach Harper, A Wolf Among Wolves: Bad deal. It's not that Splitter is a bad player. He's a pretty good complementary big man. I understand the big man tax you have to pay with salaries, but does it mean he's worth nearly $10 million per season? What about when Tim Duncan is gone and Splitter possibly becomes the best big man on the team? Is he up for that?
Kevin Pelton, ESPN Insider: Good deal. "Fair" is probably a more accurate descriptor, but Splitter was likely to get a similar offer from Portland or another team and San Antonio would have had a tough time replacing his versatility. Judging Splitter based on the Finals and not the 96 games that preceded them is a mistake.
Jared Wade, 8 Points, 9 Seconds: Good deal. Unfortunately, that's the going rate for quality, semi-young big men. For the Spurs, there would be no way to replace Splitter if he left. With Manu Ginobili now limited by age, they need guys like Tiago and, especially, Kawhi Leonard to reliably produce in order to get back to the Finals.
Kyle Weidie, Truth About It: Good deal. While the casual fan might scoff, remembering Splitter's performance in the Finals, his diverse big-man skills mean so much more to the Spurs franchise. It was simply re-upping the investment on a product of their system.
Gutierrez: Good deal. The Wolves, when healthy, were thought to be playoff contenders last season. They're simply building on that to ensure they're playoff caliber this season. On a team with Ricky Rubio as the primary playmaker, the Wolves need scorers around him, and Martin is that.
Harper: Good deal. This is actually kind of a medium deal. The Wolves badly need a legitimate scorer on the wing, and Martin has proved he can be one of the most efficient scorers in the league. But the Wolves probably have to say goodbye to Andrei Kirilenko now, and their defense will be pretty bad because of it. They need to make more moves to ensure that this is really a good deal.
Pelton: Bad deal. Martin will be effective offensively playing in Rick Adelman's system, but the money is too big for a player on the wrong side of 30. In 2016-17, Martin will be making $7 million, and it's hard to see him being able to defend anyone.
Wade: OK deal. I've never been a huge fan of Martin's game, but Minnesota was one of the worst 3-point shooting teams ever last season and Martin should help spread the floor. The Wolves need more, but in a weak free-agent class, this is an adequate move.
Weidie: Bad deal. Martin is a bad fit defensively with Rubio and his non-jump-shooting skills are in decline. Between 2006 and 2011, Martin never averaged fewer than 7.2 free throw attempts per 36 minutes; in three of those seasons, he averaged over 9.3 FTAs/36. But the past two seasons, though he was injured for one and in a different role in the other, his FTAs/36 have just been 5.1 and 4.1, respectively.
Gutierrez: Good deal. In a league where Tim Duncan is performing at a high level at 37 and Dirk Nowitzki remains a frightening threat at 35, it's hardly a stretch to consider West, 32, a top offensive option for another three seasons. He was a beast in the Eastern Conference finals, and the Pacers have every reason to believe that a slightly improved group next season is Finals-worthy.
Harper: Good deal. Three years is a lot for David West, but keeping him as part of Indiana's core is tantamount to remaining a contender in the East. West's game seems ready to age as gracefully as it can for a big man. And his toughness, coupled with Roy Hibbert's rim protection, is necessary for the Pacers' culture.
Pelton: Good deal. There's some risk here, but the three-year length limits it. More importantly, the Pacers couldn't possibly have replaced everything West does for them. Keeping him and upgrading the bench mean Indiana is a major threat in the East.
Wade: Superb deal, for both sides. This had to be the least contentious negotiation ever. Neither party could likely even bluff with a straight face that there was any other possible outcome. West may have "won" by getting a slight pay raise, but he wanted to stay a Pacer as badly as the team wanted him to remain one. He will continue as the heart-and-soul patriarch of the roster.
Weidie: Good deal. I think West has the type of skills, such as shooting and passing, that will endure the length of the contract, which will end when he is 35 years old. West's tough-guy demeanor is also valuable for the defensive reputation that the Pacers continue to build.
Gutierrez: Bad deal. The Grizzlies' grit-and-grind identity had already taken a hit when Lionel Hollins wasn't retained. Now they commit midlevel money to an offensive liability when offense was this group's primary concern. The Griz could have waited to spend midlevel money on more of a two-way player once the initial free-agent spending spree passed.
Harper: Good deal. This is a lot like the West deal for me. Four years at this stage in Allen's career is pretty risky, but he means so much to the grit-and-grind culture of the Grizzlies that keeping him around for the equivalent of a midlevel exception is huge. This could be an awkward deal in three years, but it's good now.
Pelton: Good deal. Don't love the length, since Allen, too, could decline in his 30s. But again, he was a vital part of a contending team, and the money is reasonable for a starter, even one as limited offensively as Allen.
Wade: Good deal. The last year -- maybe the last two -- could bring dwindling returns, but few play perimeter defense like Allen, and this re-signing ensures that Memphis can retain its identity in the foreseeable future.
Weidie: Bad deal. Every part of me understands why this had to happen, but Allen will turn 32 in January, and I just don't see how the body of a defensive, lay-it-all-on-the-line hustler like him won't decline rapidly at some point. But it's not age so much as shooting -- Allen's lack thereof -- that will ultimately deem this deal bad.
Gutierrez: Great deal. Not only is Redick one of the more underrated players in the league, but he can easily fill the role Ray Allen did for Doc Rivers in Boston. The Clips need to space the floor for Blake Griffin, and Redick is a great place to start.
Harper: Good deal. Spreading the floor and giving Chris Paul and Blake Griffin room to operate, especially at the end of games, is going to make the Clippers' incredible offensive even more deadly. Redick is one of the best shooters in the league and is now playing with one of the best distributors.
Pelton: Good deal. In a market that puts heavy value on shooters with the ability to defend their position, Redick was a lock to get more than the midlevel. His playmaking elevates him above the level of 3-and-D specialist and makes him a great partner for Chris Paul in the L.A. backcourt.
Wade: Great deal. The Clippers have the point guard every team dreams of and interior athletes who can detonate the rim. Nothing could help this offense as much as getting more space to work with, and that's what Redick creates as well as anyone.
Weidie: Good deal. This could be a steal for the Clippers if Redick can get his 3-point percentage back to around 39 or 40 percent. He also needs to improve his performance in the playoffs, where his eFG% has declined by 4.6 percent over his career.