PDA

View Full Version : The Max Contract



RenegadeRiot36
07-04-2012, 09:16 PM
Recently with good but not elite players like Eric Gordon and Roy Hibbert being linked to max deals with their respective teams, the question comes up whether or not the max contract is good for the game or not. Personally, as long as there is a limit, only Kobe and LeBron would be getting max money and everyone else would tier down from there. However if Roy Hibbert can get the same amount, there is obviously a flaw in the system. Thoughts?

4 POINT PLAY LJ
07-04-2012, 09:21 PM
Young players go for the money it pisses me off.

Why would anyone offer a max contract to Eric Gordon or even Roy hibbert???

JasonJohnHorn
07-04-2012, 09:22 PM
The owners are just screwing themselves. They pushed for a max-contract to limit how much they could spend on an individual player, because if there was no max then players like LBJ would be commanding 50million a year, and trust me, somebody would be willing to pay it.

But the max contract hasn't helped the owners at all, because the owners are their own worst enemy. They just had a lock out claiming that they werent making money, then they offer a scrub like Eric Gordan an max contract. Eric Gordan has has a decent season, and a season that showed a lot of promise, then he was out most of the year for an injury, and there are teams willing to give this guy a max contract based on potential. I'm not trying to knock Gordan, but let's face it, Mike James has had better seasons than what Eric Gordan has had and he's never had max-contracts thrown at him. But now these max deals are getting thrown at players, not based on what they have done, but based on their potential. Eric Gordon has NEVER performed at a high level on a winning team. That is a fact. So the guy can score twenty a game on a losing team. Just about everybody in the league can do that if you give them enough shots.

Hibbert has not proved he is worth a max contract yet. The fact that the owners are throwing these offers around is proof that they shouldn't be running a team. They will continue to lose money as they out bid each other for slightly above-average players.

JJ: MAX
D-Will: MAX
Hibbert: MAX
Gordon: MAX

This is rediculous. Max contracts should be reserved for franchise players. By the end of the off season, if all goes well for the Nets, they will have THREE players on MAX contracts (Howard, D-Will and JJ).

this is getting out of hand. We are going to see these teams lose money and have another lock out where the spend-thirft owners complain about losing money when they are the ones over biding on mid-level talent. SMH!

In my opinion only two players are finicially worth the max, Kobe and LBJ, because they generate enough revenue for the max contract to make sense. They sell that many jerseys. Yao Ming was another player, as was Jordan. Jeremy Lin may end up being one as well (though not based on what he does on the court).

As for players whose talent dictates their worth, there are only a couple more in the conversation. Howard, despite his inability to develop an offensive game, is a game changing player and in turn worth the max deal. CP3. Wade. Durant. I can't think of many others, and I might even take Wade off that list.

This is just going to lead to problems.

RenegadeRiot36
07-04-2012, 09:32 PM
Id be surprised if we didnt have another lockout happening as soon as possible. There is no way the owners can be happy about this.

bholly
07-04-2012, 09:57 PM
Recently with good but not elite players like Eric Gordon and Roy Hibbert being linked to max deals with their respective teams, the question comes up whether or not the max contract is good for the game or not. Personally, as long as there is a limit, only Kobe and LeBron would be getting max money and everyone else would tier down from there. However if Roy Hibbert can get the same amount, there is obviously a flaw in the system. Thoughts?

It works exactly how you'd expect it to work, and I don't think the bolded is true.

Imagine there are two houses that have to be sold, and you're a rich guy who wants to buy one. You think House 1 is worth $50m, so you're willing to spend anything up to that amount for it, and you think House 2 is worth $25m, so you're willing to spend anything up to that amount for it.

Now say the local government puts a cap on house prices at $15m. Of course people are going to be willing to pay $15m for either house - because they're both worth much more than that - so that's what they're going to sell for.

Are you telling me that if the $50m house was already sold, but you still had the opportunity to buy the $25m house for $15m, you're going to say no and let somebody else buy it because you think it's unfair that you're buying a $25m house for the same price as someone paid for a $15m house?
No. You're going to be bummed you didn't get the $50m house, sure, but of course you're still going to be happy to pay $15m for a $25m house. It's a bargain, and you're paying less than you think it's worth.


Back to basketball - say in a free market with no max or salary cap teams value LeBron at $50m and Gordon at $25m. If the league puts a salary cap on at $15m, teams are going to be willing to offer both LeBron and Gordon $15m. They're each worth more than that to the teams, so the teams are willing to pay that much. It sucks for the team who gets Gordon that they're only getting him for the same price that they got LeBron for, but they're still getting Gordon for less than they think he's worth.

That's how the max salary works. If a team's willing to pay the max for Gordon in the current system, they must think he's worth that much, and would be willing to pay that much for him in an open system.
It sucks for LBJ that he doesn't get his full worth, and it's great for LBJ's team that they get him for such a bargain, but it isn't like it's causing Gordon to be overpaid - he's still getting no more than what the team thinks he's worth.

In short: you can't expect teams to pay less for Gordon than LBJ just because he's worse. As long as the max is set at below what those guys are worth to teams, they'll both get the max, regardless of how much better one is than the other.

The only realistic way to avoid that is to not have a max, and then total salaries would skyrocket and the league would bust. Again, it sucks for LBJ, but it's the only way to keep the league viable.

bholly
07-04-2012, 10:02 PM
Another way of thinking about it:

Say you think Gordon's fair price is $10m, and LeBron's is the max. If they changed the max to $10m tomorrow, do you think Gordon is suddenly worth less just because now LeBron can only earn $10m? Would you say Gordon isn't worth $10m anymore because he's not among the top elite players? No, you'd just say that whoever is getting LBJ for $10m is getting a good deal.

You need to stop evaluating Gordon's salary based on what LeBron earns and their relative worths - because LeBron's salary isn't a measure of his worth, it's just the most he could be paid.

RenegadeRiot36
07-04-2012, 10:43 PM
I completely understand the concept of the max system. I agree that its a problem and would prefer to ditch it altogether. In that post, however, I was suggesting a solution based on the rationale that put the max into effect in the first place. Part of the problem is lowering the motivation to perform well. If a player can play like Eric Gordon and still make LeBron type money, then what is the purpose of working that much harder for no further compensation? But if you get rid of the max like you stated, it would cause havoc with the salary cap and have certain teams shelling out ridiculous amounts of money. Because of this, its a very tight situation to tread with.

brockwzqe
07-04-2012, 10:58 PM
Young players go for the money it pisses me off.

Why would anyone offer a max contract to Eric Gordon or even Roy hibbert???

I don't think so,young players would be better. http://www.ckyo.info

phoenix_bladen
07-04-2012, 11:37 PM
Just have shorter length contracts

3-4 years

Max is fine cause they are banking on potential and age etc but when they don't perform to expectations the owners should have the right to cut their losses

Therefore the best way is to shorten the amount of years on a player

4 years ain't bad but I think it should be 3-4 instead of 4-5

Or give the TEAMS a team option for the 4th and 5th years and eliminate the player option

Sinattle
07-05-2012, 12:35 AM
I can see where players are getting max contracts because how else are teams like the Suns or the Bucks going to land anyone? Is Phoenix better off not having not having Eric Gordon for the max and watching him go to a contender like the Knicks for 10 million/year?