Max player?

[Buzzard]

In so many words "max contracts are going to become more extinct if you want to win championships"You have to take pay cuts to win BIG. Even lebron said earlier this season that he isn't getting paid his worth....and he's not.

I don't really agree with that one. For players like Bron, Wade, Durant a pay cut is not so bad since they are making 50 to 100 million or so off of endorsements. But for players like Chandler, Hardin, Smoove, Iguodala, Pekovic et all , if they can get maxes they better strike while the iron is hot.

And there is always the career damaging injury to take into account. I don't think its as cut an dried as some want it to be and I expect a lot of movement now. People like to point to the NFL. Our Falcons are a good example that their is not much loyalty. We lost a starting corner on defense and released both Turner and Abraham. The NFL has a lot of turn over every year. Loyalty is not in play except for a select few. Even Brees refused to take a pay cut to help out the Saints last season.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Buzzard

[MaceCase]

Lol what's so hard to get what I am saying. He asked about max contracts I gave him a idea on what a max contract player is and it's only about 10 guys deserving a max deal in the nba. I then gave him examples of players that received a max contract but didnt deserve it.

To quote the great Snoop from The Wire, "deserve got nothing to do with it". If you want a more in depth look on the artificial nature of the max slot and how it is not necessarily an accurate determiner of a player's value then reference AHF's posts. The Lebron quote is in direct reference to his point because it is not about him giving up 6 million total to play in Miami at all but rather that he would command 35+ million in a free market but instead his "Max" is artificially capped at only 20 million. The past summer already (in the new CBA) saw 4 players receive new Max deals and overall you are coming at this the wrong way because you are discussing it as if the NBA has a hard cap when it in fact does not. If a team is willing to and has the capability to spend deep into the luxury tax then that is their prerogative, the Nets alone gave out and acquired 3 Max deals this past summer. Whether or not it's cost effective is a different story but they and others are very much capable of spending if they so choose to.

Edited April 29, 2013 by MaceCase

[Sothron]

To quote the great Snoop from The Wire, "deserve got nothing to do with it". If you want a more in depth look on the artificial nature of the max slot and how it is not necessarily an accurate determiner of a player's value then reference AHF's posts. The Lebron quote is in direct reference to his point because it is not about him giving up 6 million total to play in Miami at all but rather that he would command 35+ million in a free market but instead his "Max" is artificially capped at only 20 million. The past summer already (in the new CBA) saw 4 players receive new Max deals and overall you are coming at this the wrong way because you are discussing it as if the NBA has a hard cap when it in fact does not. If a team is willing to and has the capability to spend deep into the luxury tax then that is their prerogative, the Nets alone gave out and acquired 3 Max deals this past summer. Whether or not it's cost effective is a different story but they and others are very much capable of spending if they so choose to.

Actually the quote is from Clint Eastwood's character from Unforgiven as Gene Hackman's character was the sheriff he had just shot and was on the ground saying it wasn't fair for him to die that way, he didn't deserve it. That's when Eastwood said this:

[JTB]

I don't really agree with that one. For players like Bron, Wade, Durant a pay cut is not so bad since they are making 50 to 100 million or so off of endorsements. But for players like Chandler, Hardin, Smoove, Iguodala, Pekovic et all , if they can get maxes they better strike while the iron is hot. And there is always the career damaging injury to take into account. I don't think its as cut an dried as some want it to be and I expect a lot of movement now. People like to point to the NFL. Our Falcons are a good example that their is not much loyalty. We lost a starting corner on defense and released both Turner and Abraham. The NFL has a lot of turn over every year. Loyalty is not in play except for a select few. Even Brees refused to take a pay cut to help out the Saints last season.

I see what you are saying but I can't help but to look at the heat when discussing this topic. The heat has players like battier, ray Allen, chalmers, doing very hard work every game and those players are getting paid 3m a year and they are worth more than that.I get the guys who aren't elite should take the money they can get but I just don't see that as a winning championships move. You can't be greedy and suck up all the money from the team, putting your team at a position where they can't make any huge moves to improve the team around that star...(hope that makes sense)I will leave it like this some players in today's game that want to be acknowledge as stars need to look in the mirror. Players like iggy, josh smith, other players on their level are great ROLE PLAYERS and that only. They aren't franchise stars.

[Alex]

Thanks everyone for your responses. Much appreciated as always.

[JTB]

To quote the great Snoop from The Wire, "deserve got nothing to do with it". If you want a more in depth look on the artificial nature of the max slot and how it is not necessarily an accurate determiner of a player's value then reference AHF's posts. The Lebron quote is in direct reference to his point because it is not about him giving up 6 million total to play in Miami at all but rather that he would command 35+ million in a free market but instead his "Max" is artificially capped at only 20 million. The past summer already (in the new CBA) saw 4 players receive new Max deals and overall you are coming at this the wrong way because you are discussing it as if the NBA has a hard cap when it in fact does not. If a team is willing to and has the capability to spend deep into the luxury tax then that is their prerogative, the Nets alone gave out and acquired 3 Max deals this past summer. Whether or not it's cost effective is a different story but they and others are very much capable of spending if they so choose to.

So basically with all u said nothing has changed then. When stern and others sat down to discuss this new CBA wasn't they trying to help small market franchises be competitive to those of large markets? If all you say is true how does the new CBA help small markets and penalize large market teams?The new CBA was suppose to make the nba more competitive. If teams can spend as much as they want into the lux tax we still have a non competitive league.

[AHF]

So basically with all u said nothing has changed then. When stern and others sat down to discuss this new CBA wasn't they trying to help small market franchises be competitive to those of large markets?If all you say is true how does the new CBA help small markets and penalize large market teams?The new CBA was suppose to make the nba more competitive. If teams can spend as much as they want into the lux tax we still have a non competitive league.

First, you are right that we still live in an era where the "haves" have huge advantages over the "have nots." This CBA wasn't intended to make Memphis and New York operate on a level playing field.

Second, the new CBA helps smaller markets primarily through greater revenue sharing and penalizes large market teams through a much more punitive luxury tax. In addition, certain types of trades and signings are not available to teams in the luxury tax so that is a non-financial penalty designed to limit the big spenders.

[Guest]

The new CBA was suppose to make the nba more competitive. If teams can spend as much as they want into the lux tax we still have a non competitive league.

That is a naive perspective on this.

The CBA was mainly a fight between the Owners and Players over revenues. Competitive balance was a secondary issue, and if you look back at historical records of payrolls you would recognize that these mythical high spenders have generally only lasted a few seasons. (http://cbafaq.com/blog/?p=117#more-117) The Knicks (who sucked) and Dallas seem to be the only teams to buck the trend.

The increasing costs associated with the luxury tax are not going to be a huge game changer. If the revenues are there for certain teams, they are still going to be carrying around large payrolls. I know Mark Cuban has talked about this point, and money is not the issue. Cuban somehow thinks that these other minor changes to the CBA (like no SNTs if you above the apron) are going to be what force changes in the way teams are run. I keep flip flopping back and forth on whether these rules will have a significant effect. But this was not a central point of contention in the previous lock-out, it was all about revenues.

[JTB]

First, you are right that we still live in an era where the "haves" have huge advantages over the "have nots." This CBA wasn't intended to make Memphis and New York operate on a level playing field. Second, the new CBA helps smaller markets primarily through greater revenue sharing and penalizes large market teams through a much more punitive luxury tax. In addition, certain types of trades and signings are not available to teams in the luxury tax so that is a non-financial penalty designed to limit the big spenders.

Thanks for clearing that up I always thought they were intending to purposely make the nba more competitive. Many articles I read made it seem as if it was a hard cap but I see its just people thinking that those larger market teams won't be so quick to spend in the luxury tax which I believe is very false!Sorry for the earlier post I misunderstood the new rules of the CBA and didn't mean to confuse anybody. Well this makes me a little confused about why so many hawk fans are jumping for joy over our cap space?If we don't plan on spending in the lux tax it dont seem possible to be real contenders. I'm just keeping it real.....kinda make me want josh smith back now......huh naw never mind it's not that bad! Lol

[Buzzard]

That is a naive perspective on this.

The CBA was mainly a fight between the Owners and Players over revenues. Competitive balance was a secondary issue, and if you look back at historical records of payrolls you would recognize that these mythical high spenders have generally only lasted a few seasons. (http://cbafaq.com/blog/?p=117#more-117) The Knicks (who sucked) and Dallas seem to be the only teams to buck the trend.

The increasing costs associated with the luxury tax are not going to be a huge game changer. If the revenues are there for certain teams, they are still going to be carrying around large payrolls. I know Mark Cuban has talked about this point, and money is not the issue. Cuban somehow thinks that these other minor changes to the CBA (like no SNTs if you above the apron) are going to be what force changes in the way teams are run. I keep flip flopping back and forth on whether these rules will have a significant effect. But this was not a central point of contention in the previous lock-out, it was all about revenues.

I agree that it will not put to rest the big spenders ability to get better players, but think it will limit the number of those players they have. The tax on repeat offenders has not even kicked in and you have teams like the Lakers ( Gasol ) and Mavs striving to shed cap. Cuban can talk all the smack he wants to, but not retaining Chandler was a bad move based solely on cap.

I think the days of three maxed out players is about to end, just as the days of the Mavericks, Lakers, Celtics etc days of having 6,7, or 8 players making 7 or 8 mill or more a season are over as well. Any team that goes two years in a row paying the luxury tax will be begging to get lower than 10 million in it that 3rd season. Even at 10 million the tax is almost triple, which will put their tax between 25 and 30 million.

The Lakers at one time ran 30 million in the luxury which got them 30 million in tax. Now on the 3rd year that would get them 90 million of tax! Big spenders will still spend but no where near as much. Which I think will bring them down a little closer to earth.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Buzzard

[Guest]

I think the days of three maxed out players is about to end, just as the days of the Mavericks, Lakers, Celtics etc days of having 6,7, or 8 players making 7 or 8 mill or more a season are over as well. Any team that goes two years in a row paying the luxury tax will be begging to get lower than 10 million in it that 3rd season. Even at 10 million the tax is almost triple, which will put their tax between 25 and 30 million.

The Lakers at one time ran 30 million in the luxury which got them 30 million in tax. Now on the 3rd year that would get them 90 million of tax! Big spenders will still spend but no where near as much. Which I think will bring them down a little closer to earth.

Those days of 6-8 players making $7-8m never really existed and the Lakers never spent $30m in luxury tax payments. Check the link I provided to see what the actual luxury tax payments have been. The largest luxury tax ever paid was the Trail Blazers in 2003 spent $52m.

Part of why I don't believe in the "haves" and "have nots" type of arguments is by looking at who actually paid luxury taxes. Is Portland a have? Well, that is why the luxury tax makes you believe. Sacramento? Same story. San Antonio? No, they should be considered "have not" since they have had a positive inflow of luxury tax payments/revenues. Chicago? They have NEVER paid the tax, so I guess they are a "have not"...

[JTB]

Those days of 6-8 players making $7-8m never really existed and the Lakers never spent $30m in luxury tax payments. Check the link I provided to see what the actual luxury tax payments have been. The largest luxury tax ever paid was the Trail Blazers in 2003 spent $52m. Part of why I don't believe in the "haves" and "have nots" type of arguments is by looking at who actually paid luxury taxes. Is Portland a have? Well, that is why the luxury tax makes you believe. Sacramento? Same story. San Antonio? No, they should be considered "have not" since they have had a positive inflow of luxury tax payments/revenues. Chicago? They have NEVER paid the tax, so I guess they are a "have not"...

Your right and all but the teams that have won the championship since the millennium has payed luxury tax and alot of it I'm assuming anyways. All except the spurs and 04 pistons.

[Buzzard]

Those days of 6-8 players making $7-8m never really existed and the Lakers never spent $30m in luxury tax payments. Check the link I provided to see what the actual luxury tax payments have been. The largest luxury tax ever paid was the Trail Blazers in 2003 spent $52m.

Part of why I don't believe in the "haves" and "have nots" type of arguments is by looking at who actually paid luxury taxes. Is Portland a have? Well, that is why the luxury tax makes you believe. Sacramento? Same story. San Antonio? No, they should be considered "have not" since they have had a positive inflow of luxury tax payments/revenues. Chicago? They have NEVER paid the tax, so I guess they are a "have not"...

OK the Lakers paid only 21.9 million which would be over 60 million in the 3rd year. And the team full of 6,7.8 million dollar contracts is Cubans Make Believe Championship Mavs. Dirk, Chandler, Terry, Butler, Marion, Kidd, and Heywood made 6.9 million or more a season

Link:

http://www.hoopdata.com/salaries/DAL.aspx