View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Stormeo
Joined: 14 Jul 2019 Posts: 4701
Back to top |
Posted: 01/19/21 11:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
myrtle wrote: |
mavcarter wrote: |
I still wonder what WNBA executive even made the assumption that Whitcomb could possibly get a $150K contract..
$150K for bench player, nowhere near being in contention for 6WOY, who’s also 32 and will turn 33 in July? |
I was thinking 110-120. It's a new world in contracts. And I think she could be in contention for 6WOY on some teams. She's been a very important piece for Seattle - what I would call a steady eddie dependable player. |
She also wasn't terrible when she had to start in place of Loyd when Loyd got hurt in the 2019 season. Had one or two bad games, but she fit right in in the rest of them. Minnesota, Connecticut, and Vegas all need a shooter either off the bench or in the starting lineup. And then of course, Whitcomb could want to go to Phoenix to try and get in Brondello's good graces further as it pertains to her chances at (finally) making the Opals final squad. And just to add another team, I believe Whitcomb's family is based a little west of LA – which, who knows how the Sparks' roster will shape up with their many unsigned players.
|
|
mavcarter #NATC
Joined: 02 Sep 2010 Posts: 5935 Location: Chicago
Back to top |
Posted: 01/20/21 12:45 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Stormeo wrote: |
myrtle wrote: |
mavcarter wrote: |
I still wonder what WNBA executive even made the assumption that Whitcomb could possibly get a $150K contract..
$150K for bench player, nowhere near being in contention for 6WOY, who’s also 32 and will turn 33 in July? |
I was thinking 110-120. It's a new world in contracts. And I think she could be in contention for 6WOY on some teams. She's been a very important piece for Seattle - what I would call a steady eddie dependable player. |
She also wasn't terrible when she had to start in place of Loyd when Loyd got hurt in the 2019 season. Had one or two bad games, but she fit right in in the rest of them. Minnesota, Connecticut, and Vegas all need a shooter either off the bench or in the starting lineup. And then of course, Whitcomb could want to go to Phoenix to try and get in Brondello's good graces further as it pertains to her chances at (finally) making the Opals final squad. And just to add another team, I believe Whitcomb's family is based a little west of LA – which, who knows how the Sparks' roster will shape up with their many unsigned players. |
Both of you guys are probably right, I’m most likely just a little bit lower on Whitcomb in terms of total value in the entire league as opposed to Seattle and thinking that teams will be a little more frugal than last year._________________
wrote: |
Or maybe said poster should quit being a nuisance when people don’t agree? |
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 24327 Location: London
Back to top |
Posted: 01/20/21 1:07 am ::: |
Reply |
|
The old saying with free agency, especially restricted free agency where you usually have to overpay to pry someone away, is "it only takes one asshole". Only one team has to fall in love with Player X and their price can skyrocket, especially if that team happens to have more cap space than they know what to do with and thinks "what the hell".
So yeah, 150k still seems high for Whitcomb, but her minimum is 70k and she's likely proven she's better than that. So you're probably up to 100k just to show a meaningful gap from the minimum, and from there who knows. |
|
Stormeo
Joined: 14 Jul 2019 Posts: 4701
Back to top |
Posted: 01/20/21 1:10 am ::: |
Reply |
|
mavcarter wrote: |
Stormeo wrote: |
myrtle wrote: |
mavcarter wrote: |
I still wonder what WNBA executive even made the assumption that Whitcomb could possibly get a $150K contract..
$150K for bench player, nowhere near being in contention for 6WOY, who’s also 32 and will turn 33 in July? |
I was thinking 110-120. It's a new world in contracts. And I think she could be in contention for 6WOY on some teams. She's been a very important piece for Seattle - what I would call a steady eddie dependable player. |
She also wasn't terrible when she had to start in place of Loyd when Loyd got hurt in the 2019 season. Had one or two bad games, but she fit right in in the rest of them. Minnesota, Connecticut, and Vegas all need a shooter either off the bench or in the starting lineup. And then of course, Whitcomb could want to go to Phoenix to try and get in Brondello's good graces further as it pertains to her chances at (finally) making the Opals final squad. And just to add another team, I believe Whitcomb's family is based a little west of LA – which, who knows how the Sparks' roster will shape up with their many unsigned players. |
Both of you guys are probably right, I’m most likely just a little bit lower on Whitcomb in terms of total value in the entire league as opposed to Seattle and thinking that teams will be a little more frugal than last year. |
I agree; I don't foresee teams handing out max deals to the Bria Hartleys of the League this season. Though I still think that if there are any exceptions to that, it would be the Storm's free agents. (Apologies if I've said this before, cuz I probably have ) Other than the Storm org. & fanbase, absolutely no one wants to see us get back to full-strength & re-sign everyone. Some team is definitely gonna offer Clark a max deal & probably good supplemental incentives. I'm also inclined to believe the rumor of Whitcomb potentially being offered $150k. Hell, teams will surely still call about Howard, since she is still unsigned – maybe we'll even answer the phone. I'm nerrrrvous about our situation, but I'm very excited to see what happens with everything nonetheless!
Last edited by Stormeo on 01/20/21 1:12 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
J-Spoon
Joined: 31 Jan 2009 Posts: 6776
Back to top |
Posted: 01/20/21 1:11 am ::: |
Reply |
|
by my calculations this can work
Bird/Canada/pick 11
Loyd/Whitcomb
Clark/Laksa or 2nd round pick
Howard/Magbegor
Stewart/Russell
if
Howard super max 220k
Bird reg, max 190k
Clark 160K
Whitcomb 115k
and
pick 11 64k
As all the teams in contention seem to have their own cap issues I am not sure there is more out there for Clark or Whitcomb in 21 (Hartley, copper and Dolson had great free agency timing).
OTOH I do think someone else would be willing to pay Howard the super max so a Bonner-esque trade seems possible if Seattle can't get everyone on board at the lower end of their price spectrum.
I would think NY, Dallas and Atl would all heavily consider trading their lottery pick and a player if they want to fight there way back to relevance quicker than currently on the cards
#1 and Willoughby
#2 and KLS
#3 and Brewer or K. Brown (or really go for it with Hayes who is still on her old CBA 100K max)
Last edited by J-Spoon on 01/20/21 1:22 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
J-Spoon
Joined: 31 Jan 2009 Posts: 6776
Back to top |
Posted: 01/20/21 1:12 am ::: |
Reply |
|
dp
|
|
Stormeo
Joined: 14 Jul 2019 Posts: 4701
Back to top |
|
J-Spoon
Joined: 31 Jan 2009 Posts: 6776
Back to top |
Posted: 01/20/21 1:27 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Stormeo wrote: |
J-Spoon wrote: |
by my calculations this can work
Bird/Canada/pick 11
Loyd/Whitcomb
Clark/Laksa or 2nd round pick
Howard/Magbegor
Stewart/Russell
if
Howard super max 220k
Bird reg, max 190k
Clark 160K
Whitcomb 115k
and
pick 11 64k
As all the teams in contention seem to have their own cap issues I am not sure there is more out there for Clark or Whitcomb in 21 (Hartley, Copper and Dolson had great free agency timing). |
I'd love to see Birdy take that kind of discount. But if I were Clark, I'd reject that amount unless it's the highest deal offered to me. At any rate, I'm expecting that we won't be able to keep Clark, Howard, and Whitcomb. |
I put some Howard trade ideas above
but as Richyyy said there are only 12 teams who is offering Clark say 175 to 190K?
No disrespect to Clark who is great, but her fit in Seattle is perfect, where else does she make sense as a starting SF glue player. Maybe Dallas if they see Sabally as more of a full-time pf, maybe Atl but Atl already has Hayes who probably has to play SF in the new line up or come off the bench as it is if they pay Laney, NY and Indy seem to far from good to need to go all in on a decent 4th or 5th starter, can PX, Chi, LV Washington or LA make a decent offer when they all seem to be having their own cap issues? Minny already has Collier and Carleton at the 3 unless they shift Collier back to a PF spot, maybe Conn redirects some of A. Thomas' money towards Clark if Thomas is out for the year, I could see Clark as a fit there, but all I am saying is I don't see a clear big money payer for Clark ATM
|
|
Stormeo
Joined: 14 Jul 2019 Posts: 4701
Back to top |
Posted: 01/20/21 10:08 am ::: |
Reply |
|
J-Spoon wrote: |
I put some Howard trade ideas above
but as Richyyy said there are only 12 teams who is offering Clark say 175 to 190K?
No disrespect to Clark who is great, but her fit in Seattle is perfect, where else does she make sense as a starting SF glue player. Maybe Dallas if they see Sabally as more of a full-time pf, maybe Atl but Atl already has Hayes who probably has to play SF in the new line up or come off the bench as it is if they pay Laney, NY and Indy seem to far from good to need to go all in on a decent 4th or 5th starter, can PX, Chi, LV Washington or LA make a decent offer when they all seem to be having their own cap issues? Minny already has Collier and Carleton at the 3 unless they shift Collier back to a PF spot, maybe Conn redirects some of A. Thomas' money towards Clark if Thomas is out for the year, I could see Clark as a fit there, but all I am saying is I don't see a clear big money payer for Clark ATM |
Teams offering Clark max would likely depend a lot on moving parts, you're right. But that's what I think we're all counting on. It starts with believing that good players will be changing teams. LA's situation is perhaps the most fluid, but they could surely use stability at the SF spot for a change. If Griner sits out/changes teams, Phoenix could use the extra money for Clark. Maya Moore may not (ever) come back, and Cheryl Reeve seems to be comfortable with playing Collier at the 4. Sun if AT can't play is a possibility, like you said. And maybe like Jantel Lavender, Clark wouldn't mind the concept of giving her twilight years to a young team that needs her veteranship – and other than maybe Atlanta, all the lottery teams have the money for her as-is. Imo the possibilities are out there. The less moving parts there are, the less likely it creates that domino effect that causes other moves to happen. But hey, it also wouldn't be surprising if at least in the beginning, a team prioritized making a push to sign Clark over trying to re-sign their own free agents. I'm inclined to believe Operation Break The Storm Up is gonna set in amongst the other 11 teams (or at least the contenders around us).
|
|
craigmont
Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 980 Location: Bing-town
Back to top |
Posted: 01/20/21 5:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Stormeo wrote: |
J-Spoon wrote: |
I put some Howard trade ideas above
but as Richyyy said there are only 12 teams who is offering Clark say 175 to 190K?
No disrespect to Clark who is great, but her fit in Seattle is perfect, where else does she make sense as a starting SF glue player. Maybe Dallas if they see Sabally as more of a full-time pf, maybe Atl but Atl already has Hayes who probably has to play SF in the new line up or come off the bench as it is if they pay Laney, NY and Indy seem to far from good to need to go all in on a decent 4th or 5th starter, can PX, Chi, LV Washington or LA make a decent offer when they all seem to be having their own cap issues? Minny already has Collier and Carleton at the 3 unless they shift Collier back to a PF spot, maybe Conn redirects some of A. Thomas' money towards Clark if Thomas is out for the year, I could see Clark as a fit there, but all I am saying is I don't see a clear big money payer for Clark ATM |
Teams offering Clark max would likely depend a lot on moving parts, you're right. But that's what I think we're all counting on. It starts with believing that good players will be changing teams. LA's situation is perhaps the most fluid, but they could surely use stability at the SF spot for a change. If Griner sits out/changes teams, Phoenix could use the extra money for Clark. Maya Moore may not (ever) come back, and Cheryl Reeve seems to be comfortable with playing Collier at the 4. Sun if AT can't play is a possibility, like you said. And maybe like Jantel Lavender, Clark wouldn't mind the concept of giving her twilight years to a young team that needs her veteranship – and other than maybe Atlanta, all the lottery teams have the money for her as-is. Imo the possibilities are out there. The less moving parts there are, the less likely it creates that domino effect that causes other moves to happen. But hey, it also wouldn't be surprising if at least in the beginning, a team prioritized making a push to sign Clark over trying to re-sign their own free agents. I'm inclined to believe Operation Break The Storm Up is gonna set in amongst the other 11 teams (or at least the contenders around us). |
Nobody's doing anything just to "Break The Storm Up." If they're signing max free agents it's because that's the best fit for their team. There's only so much cap space and roster spots.
|
|
craigmont
Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 980 Location: Bing-town
Back to top |
Posted: 01/20/21 5:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
delete please
|
|
Stormeo
Joined: 14 Jul 2019 Posts: 4701
Back to top |
Posted: 01/20/21 6:08 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
craigmont wrote: |
Nobody's doing anything just to "Break The Storm Up." If they're signing max free agents it's because that's the best fit for their team. There's only so much cap space and roster spots. |
Of course teams aren't gonna attempt to sign a Clark or a Whitcomb if those players don't fill a team need or two; I'm already speaking under the assumption that they would. With that in mind, why wouldn't these teams go after a free agent of ours first before a similar free agent on another team? We were downright dominant when all our players were able to play this past season. Yes, literally every other playoff team was missing at least one key cog by the time the postseason started, but the point stands. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ We're undeniable contenders again even if we don't do anything other than bring back all the key unsigned main-rotation players. Another team signing our free agent(s) theoretically kills two birds in one stone with making themselves stronger while making us weaker.
|
|
craigmont
Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 980 Location: Bing-town
Back to top |
Posted: 01/20/21 8:49 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Stormeo wrote: |
craigmont wrote: |
Nobody's doing anything just to "Break The Storm Up." If they're signing max free agents it's because that's the best fit for their team. There's only so much cap space and roster spots. |
Of course teams aren't gonna attempt to sign a Clark or a Whitcomb if those players don't fill a team need or two; I'm already speaking under the assumption that they would. With that in mind, why wouldn't these teams go after a free agent of ours first before a similar free agent on another team? We were downright dominant when all our players were able to play this past season. Yes, literally every other playoff team was missing at least one key cog by the time the postseason started, but the point stands. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ We're undeniable contenders again even if we don't do anything other than bring back all the key unsigned main-rotation players. Another team signing our free agent(s) theoretically kills two birds in one stone with making themselves stronger while making us weaker. |
Fair enough, I suppose. Has anyone ever heard of an example of a team choosing one free agent over another for the reason of weakening the player's old team?
|
|
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011 Posts: 10911
Back to top |
Posted: 01/20/21 9:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
craigmont wrote: |
Stormeo wrote: |
craigmont wrote: |
Nobody's doing anything just to "Break The Storm Up." If they're signing max free agents it's because that's the best fit for their team. There's only so much cap space and roster spots. |
Of course teams aren't gonna attempt to sign a Clark or a Whitcomb if those players don't fill a team need or two; I'm already speaking under the assumption that they would. With that in mind, why wouldn't these teams go after a free agent of ours first before a similar free agent on another team? We were downright dominant when all our players were able to play this past season. Yes, literally every other playoff team was missing at least one key cog by the time the postseason started, but the point stands. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ We're undeniable contenders again even if we don't do anything other than bring back all the key unsigned main-rotation players. Another team signing our free agent(s) theoretically kills two birds in one stone with making themselves stronger while making us weaker. |
Fair enough, I suppose. Has anyone ever heard of an example of a team choosing one free agent over another for the reason of weakening the player's old team? |
How about the Sparks signing Augustus?
I think there have certainly been cases where a team bid up the salary of another team's player just to force them to burn up their cap space. However, I don't think Clark is the kind of player that would help a lot of other teams. There are now a lot of good 3's in the WNBA, and the teams that arguably need her the most (LA, PHO, and LV) have their cap issues to deal with. LA may not even be able to afford Sykes, let alone (a higher priced) Clark. Also, Clark is not the superstar type player who can turn a lottery team into a contender. Finally, she is no youngster and players on great teams always look better than they would on weaker teams. I'm thinking Seattle can sign Clark for about 150k. I don't think they need to go to $190.
|
|
craigmont
Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 980 Location: Bing-town
Back to top |
Posted: 01/21/21 2:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Randy wrote: |
craigmont wrote: |
Stormeo wrote: |
craigmont wrote: |
Nobody's doing anything just to "Break The Storm Up." If they're signing max free agents it's because that's the best fit for their team. There's only so much cap space and roster spots. |
Of course teams aren't gonna attempt to sign a Clark or a Whitcomb if those players don't fill a team need or two; I'm already speaking under the assumption that they would. With that in mind, why wouldn't these teams go after a free agent of ours first before a similar free agent on another team? We were downright dominant when all our players were able to play this past season. Yes, literally every other playoff team was missing at least one key cog by the time the postseason started, but the point stands. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ We're undeniable contenders again even if we don't do anything other than bring back all the key unsigned main-rotation players. Another team signing our free agent(s) theoretically kills two birds in one stone with making themselves stronger while making us weaker. |
Fair enough, I suppose. Has anyone ever heard of an example of a team choosing one free agent over another for the reason of weakening the player's old team? |
How about the Sparks signing Augustus?
I think there have certainly been cases where a team bid up the salary of another team's player just to force them to burn up their cap space. However, I don't think Clark is the kind of player that would help a lot of other teams. There are now a lot of good 3's in the WNBA, and the teams that arguably need her the most (LA, PHO, and LV) have their cap issues to deal with. LA may not even be able to afford Sykes, let alone (a higher priced) Clark. Also, Clark is not the superstar type player who can turn a lottery team into a contender. Finally, she is no youngster and players on great teams always look better than they would on weaker teams. I'm thinking Seattle can sign Clark for about 150k. I don't think they need to go to $190. |
Agreed. Clark has found a perfect niche as a complement to the rest of the Storm's starting lineup, which might not translate to another team (not saying she wouldn't still be a good player.)
Last edited by craigmont on 01/21/21 2:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
craigmont
Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 980 Location: Bing-town
Back to top |
Posted: 01/21/21 2:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Argh, please delete yet another duplicate post. Sorry.
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008 Posts: 32326
Back to top |
Posted: 01/21/21 4:23 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I think what Clark provides would translate to any team. She's a defender who can score when called upon to do so. She helps those superstars around her at least partially by not allowing her defender to sag off to double down, and at the other end, by taking on the hardest defensive assignment. And because of her background as a post, she's totally comfortable posting up smaller defenders. It's not like she only has value at one end of the floor. She's so multifunctional the only teams I can think might not want her would be teams that have a superstar level SF. I guess that could be considered a limitation in that I don't see her able to play a different position as well as she does at SF.
_________________ For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
craigmont
Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 980 Location: Bing-town
Back to top |
Posted: 01/21/21 4:27 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I'm as big of a Clark fan as anyone, so anything I say is motivated by wanting Seattle to keep her!
|
|
Rock Hard
Joined: 02 Aug 2010 Posts: 5349 Location: Chocolate Paradise
Back to top |
Posted: 01/22/21 4:11 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Every team this year will be using a scale. On one side of the scale is what value player x gives to your team. On the other side of scale is how much money your team can afford to pay player x. There will be some players that will get PAID this season. There will be other players that will make less money than they think their worth.
_________________ You can win, as long as you keep your head to the SKY! Be OPTIMISTIC!
Last edited by Rock Hard on 01/22/21 11:41 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
Michelle89
Joined: 17 Nov 2010 Posts: 16464 Location: Holland
Back to top |
Posted: 01/22/21 7:16 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Storm also have to think about who they have to pay next year.
_________________ "Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson were and are the dynamic duo. They're the one-two punch. They're all the clich�s possible to describe people that perfectly complement each other, who make each other better and also bring out the best in the team." �Karen Bryant
|
|
Michelle89
Joined: 17 Nov 2010 Posts: 16464 Location: Holland
Back to top |
|
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011 Posts: 10911
Back to top |
Posted: 01/29/21 11:46 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Seems this demotes Seattle from being a dynasty to just another contender.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 63719
Back to top |
Posted: 01/29/21 12:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
My trade idea is Thornton to SEA for future consideration, since DAL has 12 signed players for 2021 before they even add draft picks. Thornton has a guaranteed contract at $89.2K.
_________________ Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
Stormeo
Joined: 14 Jul 2019 Posts: 4701
Back to top |
Posted: 01/29/21 1:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Farewell, Alysha Clark. Thanks for so many good years. Hope we don't (or didn't) take you for granted.
Randy wrote: |
Seems this demotes Seattle from being a dynasty to just another contender. |
Given she was our (main) glue player, you might be right. Can't say enough about the presence of x-factors on a title-winning team.
Shades wrote: |
My trade idea is Thornton to SEA for future consideration, since DAL has 12 signed players for 2021 before they even add draft picks. Thornton has a guaranteed contract at $89.2K. |
That's definitely a good idea. We've all talked about getting Thornton before, and how she fits within that Clark mold as a player. She's very cheap and could absolutely use the change of scenery. The timing is 100% right.
That said, she's not worth our 2022 1RP by herself. The 2RP? Probably, I'd do that. Although I'm not opposed to trading our 2022 1RP for a good package. We're weaker without Alysha Clark, but we're still contenders; so while I don't think we'd prefer rookies, I would trade away both our #11 pick this year and our 2022 1RP for Thornton, Alarie, and the #5. We should also be able to have 12 players on the roster as well.
PG: Bird/Canada
SG: Loyd/Whitcomb
SF: Thornton/Laksa or someone better
PF: Stewart/Magbegor/Alarie
C: Howard/Russell
And the #5 can be a perimeter player – Evans, McDonald, Guirantes, Westbrook, Davis – whoever is deemed the best fit.
New York would be a similarly good trading partner. There are different avenues via trading that we could take to 'replace' Clark in a cheap manner. If we don't go the free agent route, I hope we go for the best deal that nets us the most overall talent.
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008 Posts: 32326
Back to top |
Posted: 01/29/21 1:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Stormeo wrote: |
Farewell, Alysha Clark. Thanks for so many good years. Hope we don't (or didn't) take you for granted.
Shades wrote: |
My trade idea is Thornton to SEA for future consideration, since DAL has 12 signed players for 2021 before they even add draft picks. Thornton has a guaranteed contract at $89.2K. |
That's definitely a good idea. We've all talked about getting Thornton before, and how she fits within that Clark mold as a player. She's very cheap and could absolutely use the change of scenery. The timing is 100% right.
That said, she's not worth our 2022 1RP by herself. The 2RP? Probably, I'd do that. Although I'm not opposed to trading our 2022 1RP for a good package. We're weaker without Alysha Clark, but we're still contenders; so while I don't think we'd prefer rookies, I would trade away both our #11 pick this year and our 2022 1RP for Thornton, Alarie, and the #5. We should be able to get to 12 players that way, too.
|
Thornton would definitely be a nice fit here.
maybe str8 for the 1RP is a bit steep, but if you think that pick is #10-12 I think it's not so bad. Stormeo's proposal OTOH is too greedy. I don't think Dallas would in any way want to give up both Thornton and Alarie.
_________________ For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
|
|