I disagree that 3-and-D players are hard to find. Year after year they pop up in the second round.
Who are all of the great 3-and-D players from the second round of the 2014 draft? 2013?
Sure, it's possible to find them in the second round, but most second rounders never develop into that type of player. The few who do develop typically take at least a few years.
If you have the other positions covered, they fall into place. There are an abundance of great athletes that can be picked up off the streets, and while most of those couldn't develop a legitimate offensive game, they can sit in the corner and knock down open 3-pointers.
If it were as easy as picking any athlete off the street and turning him into an elite 3-and-D player, Tony Allen would have never stuck in the NBA, let alone made it through more than a decade.
There is a heck of a lot more to playing defense in the NBA than simply being long and athletic. Very few young players defend at a high level out of the gate. They're so used to being physically superior to their competition that it's a major adjustment to enter a league full of comparable athletes. They have to learn the intricacies of their team's own defensive scheme, plus the nuances of their opponents, and be able to access and apply that information in the heat of the moment. It also requires intense level of focus. Tony Allen isn't a great defender simply because of his athleticism; he's a highly intelligent player who understands the nuances of the top perimeter players in the game as well as any other defender in the league.
And for all of the work that Tony Allen has put into separating himself from a large herd of 6'4" athletes, he still can't shoot worth a damn--and you'd have to be crazy think that a guy with that work ethic simply didn't put in the work in an effort to develop a jump shot.
What good teams last year didn't have 3-and-D guys on the perimeter?
OKC has never had one. The closest thing they ever had was Sefolosha. He had the D, but his jumper was shaky. If you look at his career stats, you'll see a two-year span in which he hit 40+% from 3 before regressing to his normal subpar level. Even in those two career shooting years, he was an extremely gunshy shooter. Though he was shooting it well, opposing defenders could still cheat 10 feet off him, knowing that they could recover and chase him off the line, because Thabo was afraid to shoot with a defender anywhere in his vicinity.
The Clippers didn't have a 3-and-D guy. The closest was Barnes--a good defender who was such a streaky shooter that his outside shooting averages out from average to below average in any given year. Even though Barnes has baggage, if he were that good as both and defender and a shooter, his $3.5 mil contract wouldn't have been traded twice in two weeks in salary dumps.
The closest thing Cleveland had to a 3-and-D guy was Shumpert (a mid-first rounder), whose 3-point % has cracked 35% only once--and that was in an injury-shortened season two years ago. He certainly has 3-and-D potential, but he's not there yet, even after four seasons.
Even if you look at the teams with 3-and-D guys, in most cases they didn't draft and develop those players. Ariza didn't start shooting 3s with regularity until his fifth season (and third team) in the NBA, and he didn't crack 34% until his ninth season. He's played for six teams, including Houston twice. It cost them 5 years, $33 mil six years ago and 4 years, $32 mil last summer.
The Blazers didn't draft Wes Matthews. They signed him away from Utah for five years, $34 mil.
The Spurs didn't draft Danny Green; the Cavs did. After the Cavs cut Green, the Spurs thought so highly of his 3-and-D potential that they cut him within a week.
The Warriors made a living on the defensive end with a several 6'6"-6'8" players who could switch screens and hit a decent clip of open 3s on the other end. Draymond Green was a second rounder, but Barnes, Iguodala, and Thompson were lottery picks. They're also all more dynamic offensively than the typical 3-and-D player.
I suppose you could make the argument that you need 3-and-D players to have a good team, but based on the fact that these guys are almost always 2nd rounders (or undrafted), and almost never lottery picks, I'm going to go with the "they fall into place if you have everything else" argument.
Go back to OKC. Jeff Green didn't fall into place. Thabo couldn't pull the trigger with a defender within the same zip code. DeAndre Liggins didn't fall into place. Jeremy Lamb didn't defend at all in three years. Perry Jones is still all potential, zero production. Daequan Cook couldn't defend. Kyle Weaver plays in Puerto Rico now. Dion Waiters has been terrible in catch-and-shoot situations, and he's far from a lockdown defender. Andre Roberson is a terrific defender but regularly airballs 3s. Seven seasons into his career Morrow still isn't a good defender. Even though Singler was bad in OKC, they re-signed him for 5/25 in hopes that he can replicate his good 3/not terrible D production during his time in Detroit.
As to why so many 3-and-D guys are former second rounders, much of it likely goes back to those guys not having enough talent and all-around game to stick without playing their tails off every night and developing in one or two specific areas. Not as many first rounders--especially when we're talking about 19- and 20-year-olds--have the maturity and self-awareness to realize at such an early age that they're best suited to be role players who make their living playing their tails off defensively without getting many touches offensively. Even the guys who want to be those type of players don't immediately have the range and defensive awareness required to be true 3-and-D guys out of the gate.
I can get behind the argument that the Raptors couldn't get anything better for that money, and that it won't be as bad when the cap increases, but they still overpaid. He's not worth that kind of money.
3-and-D players have been underpaid. What you're seeing now is an influx of TV money combined with a market correction on 3-and-D guys.
In Carroll's case maybe he only gets 4/50 offers elsewhere, but Toronto is a team that has to outbid teams in more attractive markets. 4/60 was a steep price, but what would've happened had they offered 4/52--not enough to get Carroll to commit on the spot--only for Carroll to visit other teams with similar offers?
It wasn't an egregious overpay. I don't see the issue with it unless there was a clearly superior alternative for that money. My argument wasn't about Carroll so much as this year's free agent market in general (Carroll was just an example). From what I've gathered on this board, approximately 95% of this summer's free agents were overpaid, when the current NBA salary cap landscape is more complex than most fans realize.
