PDA

View Full Version : Does every team have a max-contract player per se?



DitchDat
01-28-2010, 11:10 AM
Let me reprase this: is the biggest player on a team automatically a max-contract player?

I say this because of Gilbert Arenas' gun incident. The Wizards are trying hard to get rid of his contract, which he never should have received in the first place.

He is injury prone (I think he played 460 of 740 possible regular season games), he is not a true point guard (don't kid yourselves), he is a high-volume shot taker, converting at highly-inefficient percentages and he still has a lot of growing up to do.

While I understand the NBA, and all other sports for that matter, are about making money, and teams try to retain high-profile players to earn money through ticket sales and merchandise, I think the overpaying has gone too far.

Do players think they deserve to make astronomous amounts of money? Does Gilbert Arenas think he is worth 111 million dollars? Shark tanks and bat caves don't pay for themselves, I understand, but God damn. Same goes for T-Mac, Jermaine O and a lot of other players. Are they money hungry or are there life expenses I don't know about? Anyone? Antoine Walker?

What bothered me even more than the 111 millions reasons he should pipe down and just be worried about playing, is that he reportedly took a slight paycut (I believe he was offered a 125 million dollar contract) so that his team would not be "bound" by signing him (Hmmmm). I thought to myself "Hey, why not accept 60, 70 or 80 million and have my organization bring in another high-profile player, that would truly mean something." Guess that's just me though.

The CBA negotiations are gonna be harsh, believe that.

Pierzynski4Prez
01-28-2010, 11:18 AM
**** no. There are probably more teams that don't have, or shouldn't have, a max player than there are teams with one.

Chi, Sac, NJ, NY, GSW, Mil, PHI (brand shouldn't have one), IND, DET, CHA, WAS (not atleast),LAC, maybe more, but i don't feel like looking it up.

Chronz
01-28-2010, 01:36 PM
Its the length of the years thats the problem, but some of those guys were worth the salary at one point. Tmac was very much worth the salary, he was a top 3 player in the game and the only reason your team wasnt floundering. Thats worth the investment, its once you realize his production isnt sustainable that the contract becomes cancerous.