Pros and cons of extending Devonte’ Graham’s contract, and how much Hornets should pay
Is now the time to take Devonte Graham off the free-agent market?
Graham, a former second-round pick, becoming a starter and leading scorer is the biggest success so far in the Mitch Kupchak-James Borrego regime of Charlotte Hornets basketball. Graham’s salary for next season — an un-guaranteed $1.66 million — is among the bigger bargains on any NBA team’s payroll.
Under the collective bargaining agreement, the Hornets can offer Graham a contract extension this offseason — the second anniversary of his signing his rookie contract. The rules governing that extension are complex, but it’s estimated the Hornets could pay him up to about $11 million the first season to build a new contract.
Should the Hornets look to preemptively do that, or let this play out until Graham reaches restricted free agency after next season? That tops your questions for this Hornets mailbag:
Would you go ahead and sign Graham to an extension now?
— Mark
I would make an offer. But I caution you there are reasonable arguments to wait.
Two player-personnel executives from other NBA teams separately said they don’t know if there is enough data yet to conclude Graham is a starting point guard on a team built to advance in the playoffs. Dramatic as Graham’s improvement was, he still must improve his mid-range game (just 27% shooting 3-to-10 feet from the basket) to complement his 3-point accuracy.
The Hornets’ history with extensions (i.e. new deals before that player reaches free-agency) is mixed. It worked out great with Kemba Walker and well with Jeremy Lamb, but was a bad call regarding Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, who hardly played his last two seasons here while making $13 million annually.
Once the Hornets re-sign Graham, all the risk is on the team. The deal I’d offer is $40 million over four years, with a player option for Graham in the final season. A $10 million average salary wouldn’t be excessive if Graham doesn’t continue ascending. That player option protects him, should he become an All-Star caliber player.
If the Hornets and Graham ultimately decide to let this play out to free agency, it’s not the worst thing: The Hornets would restrict that free agency with an inexpensive $2.1 million qualifying offer, and then we’d see how the rest of the league values Graham, with Charlotte holding the right to match any offer sheet.
If a disgruntled good player (like Victor Oladipo, Buddy Hield or Myles Turner) is available, could you see the Hornets circumvent the total rebuild to get that guy who could be a star in a new environment?
— Señor Fantastico
I think Kupchak is receptive to using salary-cap space to facilitate trades that would upgrade this team’s talent. Far more receptive than he would be chasing name free agents.
However, the key word in your question is “disgruntled.” Kupchak and Borrego have said repeatedly they prioritize players who fit and want to be here. So if a player is unhappy elsewhere, it demands research whether he’s receptive to what the Hornets are building in Charlotte.
Also, the contract the Hornets would inherit is a factor: Oladipo, for instance, has one season left (at a $21 million salary) before he’d become an unrestricted free agent. How much would you give up in trade to acquire a player you might have for only one season?
So philosophically, the Hornets would certainly be open to trading for veterans. It gets more complicated in judging each individual situation.
Can you see the Hornets trading up or down in the draft?
— Chris
I can see Kupchak discussing it, but I’d guess the odds are at least 70% that the Hornets stay in the No. 3 spot in the Nov. 18 draft.
With Kupchak saying talent, regardless of position, is this team’s greatest need, it makes little sense to trade down. Trading up, even in a weak draft, would be costly as far as giving up other assets.
If Kupchak decides one player clearly shines above the others in this group, maybe he’d pitch a trade to the Minnesota Timberwolves at No. 1 or the Golden State Warriors at No. 2. But since the talent at the top of this draft is relatively flat, why not just wait to see what falls to you?
What are the chances Kupchak could turn the No. 3 pick into a real building block if one wasn’t available in the draft?
— Colby
Trading a high draft pick for a veteran is risky, particularly for a team still in rebuild mode. The rookie pay scale allows teams to pay young guys affordably while they develop. Exchanging a young guy for a veteran contract gives up that advantage.
It’s different for a team like the Warriors, who are still in contention mode. They could justify trading the No. 2 pick for immediate help pursuing a championship. The Hornets are so far from that circumstance that they’d have to get a no-brainer opportunity to exchange the No. 3 pick for a veteran.
Do you see the NBA playing in a bubble again next year?
— Chad
Both the owners and the players will explore every way to avoid that. Next season might not start before February, or even March, if there are indications arenas could open to fans, at least with limited attendance.
The bubble on Disney’s campus near Orlando, Fla., was a way to preserve what television revenue the league could get in the pandemic. It is not a long-term alternative to live audiences and the revenue that generates. I’ve read that revenue generated from attendance (tickets, concessions, merchandise, amenities) accounts for around 40% of the league’s total generated.
The bubble was a genuine hardship for the players, particularly on the contending teams that were there for months. Doing that again, and expanding the concept to all 30 teams, would be a last resort.
This story was originally published October 5, 2020 at 4:48 PM.
