What is your definition of a Max player?

[Diesel]

2 hours ago, AHF said:

The definition has always been a simple matter of economics.  You remember supply and demand.  There is a supply and demand curve for each player that sets their salary.  The maximum salary is an artificial ceiling on salary so every player whose salary is at or above the max based on their supply / demand curve is a max player.  It so happens that right now there is a circumstance with (a) a rising cap which means more available money and (b) a lot of players locked into current contracts below what would be their free market value.  The combination of those things raises the price for players even more.  Hence, there is now a much larger pool of players who are "max" players.  

Players who are max palyers vs. Players who want a max contract is different for me.   I think that some of these guys want a max contract because of the situation, however, their play is not representative of a max player.

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, AHF said:

@JayBirdHawk and @hawksfanatic are two of the most thoughtful posters on here.  I can't help but follow in their footsteps or predict their next post.  

No need to get in a tizzy, though.

Trust me when I say...you're safe, @kg01, you're safe.

[Sothron]

The old way of thinking was only superstars...then all star level...now pretty much any above average starter. The market determines who is and who is not a max player. For those fans thinking a guy isn't one or close to one some team seems to always give them a deal if their current team will not.

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

[benhillboy]

To dumb it down I guess you can look at it as a guy you don't mind eating 25-35% of your team's cap.  

Ideally for me that's just a guy who's going to the line 5-8 times a game and is annually in the running for 2nd Team All-Defense or better.  Most of the guys in line don't fit that model so what do I know.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

22 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

The definition is no longer about what happens on the floor.  It's about bargaining power and the number of teams in play for your services.

I'm really over it.  They'll get paid by their own teams or another.  That's the reality.

I'll start calling them 'The Un-Deserving'

Bingo.

[Thomas]

19 hours ago, Sothron said:

The old way of thinking was only superstars...then all star level...now pretty much any above average starter. The market determines who is and who is not a max player. For those fans thinking a guy isn't one or close to one some team seems to always give them a deal if their current team will not.

Let's us know how incredibly large the revenue of the NBA is when  "any above average starter" can be offered a max contract. 

[AHF]

56 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Let's us know how incredibly large the revenue of the NBA is when  "any above average starter" can be offered a max contract. 

When the cap stablilizes, it won't be as much like this.  Part of this inflation is being driven by the very significant cap rises year over year and most of the league being locked into long-term contracts that become "underpaid" relative to the new cap (i.e., if you have 7 guys under contract who were worth and were being paid 70% of your payroll and the cap rises by 10% then they are now only being paid 63.6% of your cap which gives you an additional 6.4% of your cap to spend).

[Guest]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

When the cap stablilizes, it won't be as much like this.  Part of this inflation is being driven by the very significant cap rises year over year and most of the league being locked into long-term contracts that become "underpaid" relative to the new cap (i.e., if you have 7 guys under contract who were worth and were being paid 70% of your payroll and the cap rises by 10% then they are now only being paid 63.6% of your cap which gives you an additional 6.4% of your cap to spend).

Any team/agent that is worth a damn will internalize the future cap growth during negotiations for current contracts. So the random fluctuations around the projections (which really shouldn't be based off of only what the league projects) are what drive the phenomenon you're describing.

I'm glad this thread got beat down with a bit of sophisticated thinking.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, AHF said:

When the cap stablilizes, it won't be as much like this.  Part of this inflation is being driven by the very significant cap rises year over year and most of the league being locked into long-term contracts that become "underpaid" relative to the new cap (i.e., if you have 7 guys under contract who were worth and were being paid 70% of your payroll and the cap rises by 10% then they are now only being paid 63.6% of your cap which gives you an additional 6.4% of your cap to spend).

Exactly. The cap from 2010-2014 moved $58 mil to $58.6 mil, a difference of $600,000.00. In the next 2 years in jumped by $12 mil. Next year $17 mil. That's  crazy money for one year, that's  why owners are willing to pay 'The Underservings' a max contract because the percentages of the cap the max takes up in 1 year reduces by year 2.

[AHF]

41 minutes ago, hawksfanatic said:

Any team/agent that is worth a damn will internalize the future cap growth during negotiations for current contracts.

Can you spell this out a bit more?

I don't see the type of discipline in spending that suggests to me that GMs fully incorporate that cap growth in current contracts -- particularly when the rise in the cap exceeds the maximum year over year raise available under the CBA.  Conversely, FAs sometimes don't have the leverage to capture that future cap growth and sign contracts like Isaiah Thomas or Kyle Korver where they are moderate to start and pretty flat or declining  into the future which effectively makes them a declining salary over time as a % of the cap.  With the cap rising there seem to be more of these "undervalued" contracts in the league right now -- though perhaps that is just me looking at the anecdotes.  The argument for that type of player with the flat or declining deal  would be that he got more up front than he might otherwise but that just creates more money to spend on other players.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, AHF said:

Can you spell this out a bit more?

Eh, I don't want to write a manifesto but BRI is predictable in a way that is different from the NBA's set guidelines. So teams and agents better have their own projections.

That aside, teams are in different cycles of cap management for each year and have different strategies. Same with players. So when the BRI is going "out of whack" or what have you....well that's not a problem if everyone has the perfect prediction. You'll have players, like Paul, who will sign shorter deals to capitalize on the windfall and etc.

You're kinda right about the raises. In general, the NBA chooses the 4.5% raises because the majority of their contracts are signed at this level and it's what they roughly predict the increases to be from year-to-year. That'll probably change though.

[AHF]

38 minutes ago, hawksfanatic said:

Eh, I don't want to write a manifesto but BRI is predictable in a way that is different from the NBA's set guidelines. So teams and agents better have their own projections.

That aside, teams are in different cycles of cap management for each year and have different strategies. Same with players. So when the BRI is going "out of whack" or what have you....well that's not a problem if everyone has the perfect prediction. You'll have players, like Paul, who will sign shorter deals to capitalize on the windfall and etc.

You're kinda right about the raises. In general, the NBA chooses the 4.5% raises because the majority of their contracts are signed at this level and it's what they roughly predict the increases to be from year-to-year. That'll probably change though.

I think once the year over year raises drop to a more historically normal level, we'll see more of the stable planning that you envision.  Until then you are right that the true stars will sign shorter deals.  This reminds me a bit of housing bubble with less downside.  I.e., it won't burst and crash - just stop growing at such an exorbitant rate.  Instead of under water mortgages, GMs will have to deal with many fewer dollars to chase that post-bubble crop of FA talent.

Right now it is kind of like a keeper league fantasy format.  Lots of guys are on contracts that are less than their market value so there are more dollars chasing the limited pool of talent.  Once the contracts of 2 years ago are no longer so predominately low cap % versus value, there will no longer be such a flush pool of money to chase that crop of free agents.  We aren't staring at that reality today, though.

[Duff_Man]

Vernon MAXwell.