Roundtable: NBA Free Agency Edition

NBA free agency went full force at midnight as players are now allowed to meet with teams to discuss their future plans. Outside of the courting of Kevin Durant, some of the offseason’s most interesting storylines will center around the league’s young talent. We decided to take a shot at sorting out what will happen with some of the top young free agents and whether or not the deals they’re likely to secure will be worth it for the franchises paying them.

1. Harrison Barnes was a punching bag throughout the NBA Playoffs because of talks surrounding a potential max deal for the Warriors’ forward, so what’s your prediction for Barnes in free agency?

Chris Stone (@cstonehoops): I don’t really buy Barnes as a top two player on a good team and don’t think he’s worth the max, but I do think that some team will offer the max to Barnes as they get a bit desperate searching to add talent. The most interesting question is whether or not the Warriors would actually match a max offer by a team looking to add Barnes to their core. I think the Warriors might be smart enough to think long-term in order to solidify their cap flexibility and allow the former Tarheel to walk.

Brendon Kleen (@BrendonKleen14): Barnes was always rumored to be getting maxed by a young team (Philly, Phoenix, etc.) hoping he could become even more than he has already shown himself to be. He didn’t suddenly become demonstrably worse during the latter half of the playoffs, and has shown the versatility and shot-making to be pretty frightening within systems or lineups that mimic Golden State’s. If he goes somewhere where he’s asked to do more Best Player things like handling the ball or defending the best opposing player for heavy minutes, the backlash might be even greater in the short-term. All that being said, my guess is that the Dubs will miss out on Kevin Durant and end up mostly running it back with Harrison Barnes in that spot.

Related Story: Is Barnes worth the max?

Andrew Tobolowsky (@andytobo): The thing is — Barnes hasn’t shown anything to make me think he’s a feature player. Most importantly, he hasn’t shown much of an ability to create his own shot. So what are we talking about here? A better rebounding Wes Matthews? Is he that good at defense? It’s hard to say. But first of all, everyone has so much more money than they had last year and I just don’t think anyone’s going to save it. You could think this might be a situation like Monta Ellis had a few years ago, where it was a guy who once seemed like a prime talent destined for max deals suddenly finding himself with way fewer suitors than we all figured. But the difference is where they are in their careers and I think it will count. I don’t see max money but I bet he gets whatever the new cap equivalent of $11-12 mil a year is.

2. On the opposite side of the coin, Bismack Biyombo opted out of his contract with Toronto after an impressive series of playoff performances. Biyombo seems set to be a land a big contract in free agency, but will he be worth it?

Stone: I tend to think Biyombo is a really good backup center, but I’m not sure if he’s a starting quality player because of his below average size and lack of contributions on offense. If he can’t be a starter, I have serious questions about some of the numbers that are being thrown around — nearly $20 million! — and don’t think he’ll be worth that big of a deal.

Related Story: Biyombo: Buy or no?

Kleen: That of course depends on what the deal is. He does not deserve his max, but something just shy of $20 million per year in average annual value seems fair to me. There are landing spots all over the league (Portland, LA, Boston) that could benefit from giving Biyombo the first major payday of his career. Something like 3 years/$54 million feels right.

Tobolowsky: I don’t think he’s going to get much. He didn’t suddenly become a great PLAYER, just demonstrated that he was maybe even a little better rebounder than we all thought. Even in the playoffs he never averaged 7 points a series. Even playing 31 minutes a game against Cleveland. If it were 1985, he’d be the next Dennis Rodman without the D. Today, with these spread offenses, he’ll keep on being an off the bench body who’s a plus rebounder. So whatever that’s worth.

3. Bradley Beal is a restricted free agent, but he seems set to get the max from Washington this offseason. For the Wizards, is this a good move, a bad move, or just a necessary move?

Stone: I’ll go with necessary. Beal is pretty clearly part of the Wizards long-term plans and a member of their core alongside John Wall, but his health problems are a big issue. If Beal somehow gets the necessary treatment that allows him to stay on the court for a full season, then the deal will most likely be rated as a good move retroactively, but for now, it just seems necessary to keep them in playoff contention.

Kleen: Ugh. It’s necessary, because they fancy themselves competitors still with most of their roster sloping upward in terms of improvement, but he has not shown himself worthy of that kind of contract to this point. The 2014 playoffs mixtape should be the only thing he brings with him to the negotiations, because it’s really all he has besides a jump shot to show for his career. We know what Beal is for the most part, and I’m not sold that he’ll become more. If you’re Washington and you’re maxing him out, you need him to become more. These are the breaks.

Tobolowsky: The Wizards have chosen a plan and they should stick to it. Three seasons ago they made the playoffs, after being terrible for five years, and they figured they’d keep the core together — similar to the Pelicans in that way. It wasn’t a great core and it didn’t have a lot of upside, but the fans really liked it and if there’s one thing being a Mavs fan has taught me, it’s that it can be really valuable to keep a core together and just see if maybe you get lucky with an addition who contributes more than expected. I think Beal’s their guy, injuries and all, and they should keep being brave.

4. Jordan Clarkson has been a promising find for the Lakers, but Los Angeles has an even younger core that will regularly need the ball centered around D’Angelo Russell and Brandon Ingram. Given that fact, should the Lakers be prepared to match whatever offer Clarkson receives this offseason?

Stone: If the Lakers can keep Clarkson on a reasonable, short-term deal, then I think it makes sense for them to do so, but if they have to invest a decent amount of money with a large number of years, then it becomes much more questionable. The Lakers should want to maintain as much cap flexibility as possible in order to lure free agents to join their promising youth movement and lining Clarkson’s pockets may be counter to that plan.

Kleen: They should. Clarkson fits well next to Russell in that they both are sort of tweeners at the guard spots; both can score, shoot and handle with the size to defend twos. That kind of versatility will be fun to manipulate for new coach Luke Walton, especially with less-polished guys like Ingram and Julius Randle who need the table set for them on offense. The risk with Clarkson is that he’s not yet a good defender, and is part of a roster riddled with guys undeveloped on that end. If you’re paying him up into the eight-digit range, you might be locking those defensive deficiencies into a young team long-term.

Tobolowsky: All kind of depends on how soon you think the Lakers need to worry about being good. It being LA, being good enough to attract FAs might be a big deal. But otherwise this doesn’t matter that much. Clarkson is perfectly decent but seems really likely to have a low ceiling. It’s rare to see a PG’s assists per game go down with more minutes and similar usage, and it’s very rare to see at as low as it was last year for any starting ballhandler (2.4 a game). A lot of that was playing with D’Angelo, a lot of that was not having anyone to pass to, but a guy who scored 15 points on 43 percent shooting should be stronger in other facets of his game than Clarkson is. They won’t miss him that much if he leaves.