Super Max Contracts Have Been An Absolute Failure!

Discussion in 'NBA Discussion' started by KB24, Jul 17, 2019.

  1. KB24

    KB24 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    Messages:
    3,159
    Likes Received:
    8,286
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Certified Tax Advisor
    Location:
    Germany
    Offline
    Originally my understanding was that the supermax was created to give the franchise of a star player a leg up in negotiations and make sure they can offer their player millions of reasons to stay instead of move.

    This concept has failed on so many levels, that I think it cannot be part of the next CBA.

    1. Players have chosen to leave money on the table and go sign else where...LeBron, Kawhi, Durant, Davis, George are all top 10 if not top 5 players that have done it because they can make their money regardless.

    2. Players have more incentive to demand trades before free agency in order to have their bird rights transferred to the new team and usually the old team doesn't get good enough value.

    3. My biggest issue...most of these players sign 2-3 year deals...get over the hump at the age of 30-31....and then expect the supermax...so most teams are forced to pay them deep into their 30s 50-ish million a year. There are the usual risks of decline, injury, milage etc...but the main problem is also that only "decent" players expect to extract every penny out of the franchise.

    You see guys like Tobias Harris or Khris Middleton get almost 200 millions for 4-5 years...thats just deep trouble for the franchises as they are crippled for half a decade. I don't care about the owners, they usually have enough money but for fans who are then stuck with mediocrity for ages...

    see John Wall, Chris Paul, Russell Westbrook, Damian Lillard...etc.

    I really think this isn't sustainable for teams to put competitive products on the floor. It leads to players coming to teams....gutting the salary cap and then leave in a few years either via trade demand or by signing shorter contracts.

    This isn't a good solution for anyone but the player. I understand that players mobility is attractive as it reshuffles the deck every now and then and the balance of power shifts around...nonetheless teams with a star are absolutely at their mercy and if they sacrifice their future for short-term success...the player simply moves on after his short-term success and the franchise is in shambles.

    I don't know what the perfect solution looks like...but the current one is absurd to me and a disservice to the fans. We need to make sure that teams aren't able to pay crippling salaries because if they can, the players expect them to do so and then they end up in hell.

    Yes I know in a 5 vs 5 game...especially in a star driven league like the NBA...one player makes all the difference and they want to get paid accordingly and they should. But not in a way that they can just cripple teams and then move on to the next team. There needs to be a smarter solution to this. Especially when guys want these huge contracts on the wrong side of 30.

    If they are 25 I'm absolutely OK. But they usually aren't. They sign contracts based on the limits put on super max contracts and then sign the biggest contract at 30+. This needs to be somehow changed so that when you get older, you can't get paid MORE but less. Move the big money into their mid 20s instead of mid 30s.
     
  2. Savory Griddles

    Savory Griddles Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2014
    Messages:
    9,133
    Likes Received:
    22,303
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Offline
    Yeah. It's going to be hard to take them out of the next CBA though. Now that certain players have access to them, good luck getting them removed. I think it depends who the Player President is. Those max deals help superstars, but hurt the other players by leaving less money for them. A mid-tier player needs to be president to see those things dumped.
     
    revgen, LTLakerFan, abeer3 and 2 others like this.
  3. Cookie

    Cookie The Dame of Doom Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    4,171
    Likes Received:
    20,861
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Online
    Some ideas could be pay X amount in salary if you are with the same team for for 5, 10 years but that amount does not apply if you change teams.

    If players ask to be traded any trade kicker in their contract is null and void. It is still paid if the team decides to trade the player though.

    I think the tables turned when players started to make more money off the court then on. Of course that only applies to the top guys but those are the ones everyones after.

    To get any big changes in the CBA, teams have to Appeal to the lower tier players. There are a lot more of them then the big time players. If you can construct their contract to pay them more and the big players less, you would have the votes for it to pass. Even if the top tier players were against it.
     
  4. trodgers

    trodgers Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    11,976
    Likes Received:
    18,323
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Professor of Humanities
    Location:
    Orlando
    Offline
    I don't see those things as failures as much as new incentive structures.
     
  5. abeer3

    abeer3 - Lakers Legend -

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    25,702
    Likes Received:
    69,905
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Offline
    they've generally backfired. one issue is that these guys now make so much money that the difference really doesn't matter. we're talking 30 million to someone who has 150-200. is that a lot of scratch? oh yes, but...you still have 100 million in the bank. i think AD's legacy talk should have alerted people: once you've made a certain amount, it just doesn't matter. your great granchildren are already set. your family may be wealthy when the world ends.

    i don't think there's an easy fix to that. you can't make people care more about money.

    what you CAN try to do is prevent a few teams from nabbing all the big names. but how? probably would take some weird rules that players would not like. the lux tax and hard cap/apron stuff has been a little helpful in this regard, but it punishes small markets moreso than big ones, which wasn't the idea.

    the rule that prevented davis from being traded to boston in february is the kind of measure that can help. more creativity there can help. but short of bringing in arbitrators and having silent auction free agencies and such, it's really hard to make things fair without unfairly restricting players' rights. honestly, i don't think popovich was being serious, but some sort of independent trade board that got triggered when a star was moving is another idea. but then that body would constantly be under fire as well.

    okc's inability to cash in on drafting three MVPs looms large in this conversation? how does that happen? how do you prevent it from happening? do you want to?

    i realize i'm saying nothing now, so i'll stop.
     
    revgen, trodgers, TIME and 3 others like this.
  6. Savory Griddles

    Savory Griddles Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2014
    Messages:
    9,133
    Likes Received:
    22,303
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Offline
    The word in the street is Chris Paul is hated as the players Prez.

    But in fairness to the top stars, basketball is the one sport where the top 10 players in the league actually have the impact proportional to their salaries when being compared to the mid-tier guys. You are better off with Anthony Davis and four $5 million a season players than five $10 million a year players.
     
    revgen, sirronstuff, abeer3 and 3 others like this.
  7. trodgers

    trodgers Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    11,976
    Likes Received:
    18,323
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Professor of Humanities
    Location:
    Orlando
    Offline
    If it's designed to give organizations the leg up on retaining top stars, then perhaps it has failed.

    The NBA has contract guarantees the NFL doesn't. In the NFL, players have to sit out in order to make their point. In the NBA, it's hard for owners to have leverage over players. It's a much more player-friendly league, for better or worse.

    One unintended(?) result is that second tier players - very good but not superstars - will get the absurd contracts.
     
  8. revgen

    revgen - Lakers 6th Man -

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,833
    Likes Received:
    4,203
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Offline
    I think we'll see less of them as time goes on. Similar to "No-trade clause" contracts. When a team offers these, they are essentially bidding against themselves. No other team can offer that much.
     
    Savory Griddles and trodgers like this.
  9. abeer3

    abeer3 - Lakers Legend -

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    25,702
    Likes Received:
    69,905
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Offline
    i've long advocated just abolishing the max. if kawhi was making 60 million this year, it becomes an interesting challenge to field a roster around him. it might also keep secondary salaries lower, as there's no magic point to which everyone aspires (which drives up the cost for say, khris middleton or kemba walker).

    both players (kills the middle class) and owners (could kill pocket books in some scenarios) wouldn't want this, though. but it would solve some parity issues. the big markets would still get the biggest stars, but smaller markets could field competitive ensemble rosters. right now, they really can't. because they have to max middleton.
     
    JohnnyComeLately2k6 and trodgers like this.
  10. trodgers

    trodgers Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    11,976
    Likes Received:
    18,323
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Professor of Humanities
    Location:
    Orlando
    Offline
    The NBA wants the biggest talent, so they cap it because a) the chance to earn $40ish million a year is more than just about anywhere else and the talent level is so high. It's essentially a protectionist move for the league. I do think it limits what a few players can and will make. Remember when MJ got $30m a year, with the cap? That salary was something like 1/45th of league revenu at the time. His inflation-adjusted salary in his major years would have been between 50m and 60m. I'm rambling.
     
    JohnnyComeLately2k6 likes this.

Share This Page