2021-2022 AROUND the NBA: GSW Champs [ARCHIVED]

[SleepingHero]

Something both teams have in common is both took on high salary players who where thought to have albatross contracts.  Both Wiggins and Horford were discussed here a great bit with very little support for taking on that kind of money.  I mean ‘why would anyone pay that kind of money for somone who is likely the 4th/5th best player on the team’?  Well, now we know why.  Because it is hard to get 4 or 5 guys of that quality without an overpay somewhere along the line.

I think many of us make the same mistake with Gobert.  He’s easily a top 20 player in the league and the first negative thing anyone says is how much money he makes.  Well, to get him we have to salary match to within a certain percentage of what Gobert makes.  Those outgoing players combined won’t be nearly as efficient as Gobert, yet somehow more money for a great player is a worse idea than 75-cents on the dollar for much worse players.

Concerns about playoff role are potentially valid with Gobert, but unknowable given the different scheme and players who would be around Gobert.  But the greater lesson of Wiggins and Horford is you may have to overspend to get the depth of quality needed to win it all.

I agree with you that in order to create a team with major depth at every position we need to be willing to accept an overpay here or there, but I don't think the argument against Gobert is about his high salary, but rather it's a question of how easy is it to replicate what Gobert brings at a better cost.

Now 3x DPOY don't just grow on trees, and Gobert is fantastic at what he does. It's easy to downplay his impact because of what has occurred recently, but I am a firm believer that Gobert would be a force on a good team, and the Mavs should be lucky to get him at a reasonable cost.

With that said, how much different is this team with Gobert versus say Clint Capela? Myles Turner? Nurkic? Heck a rookie that fills the skills we all desire (i.e. Williams, Duren. Koloko etc.). Suspend a moment how attainable each of these guys are respectively, and ask philosophically if Gobert is actually worth that much of an investment on this particular team? 

I find myself straddling that line. Some days I think this team with Gobert is a finals contender based on what we saw these playoffs, on other days I fear we go all in on a one dimensional guy that doesn't really diversify the offense and his defense is able to be schemed out in the playoffs and we stagnate much like Utah except Gobert is even older. 

I know you weren't really making a post about Gobert but rather learning the lesson of Wiggins/Horford (the latter I was a big proponent of last offseason), but I do think using him as an example for your original point doesn't really work in favor for it, and Gobert is a unique case all together.