PDA

View Full Version : Would you give James Harden a max contract???



Ty Fast
10-19-2012, 08:47 PM
The Thunder have until Oct 31 to get a deal done or he is eligible to become a RFA and I think there is a couple teams that would offer him a max deal. Eric Gordan got offered a max deal and he has been hurt a lot durring his career. I personally would not give him a max deal. Would you?

P Harvy
10-19-2012, 08:52 PM
A max contract to smd sure

JasonJohnHorn
10-19-2012, 08:56 PM
I answered yes. He's not actually eligible for a true max deal, just the max available for a player with his time in the league, which I think he is worth. That said, unless the OKC are actually making enough money to take on that kind of pay-roll and still turn a profit, they might want to look into trading him before the contract is up. Also, they still have Harden coming off the bench and they already have two 25+ point scorers on their team. Do they need another? Or would they do just as well with a strong defender with range at that position? I don't think is it worth it to OKC to give him that kind of money, but for another team it may very well be, though I would like to see OKC keep this group of young players together.

If I were a team that had the cap space (like the Rockets or Mavs, if they do have cap space, not sure), I would pursue him. Or, if I were a team like the Knicks and the Lakers who may enough to afford that I would be willing to pay him (though obviously they don't have the cap space).

The thing is, Harden is a potential franchise player (and I stress potentially). He could be a guy who drops 25+ a night for you effeciently, so if you are a team in need of that, he's worth the money. But the Thunder don't need that. They already have Westbrook and Durant.

He is worth it to somebody, so he will make the max, it is just a matter of what jersey he will be wearing while he's earning it.

PleaseBeNice
10-19-2012, 08:56 PM
Im still laughing at Gordon getting a max contract

b@llhog24
10-19-2012, 08:58 PM
Easily.

BirdIsTheWord
10-19-2012, 09:19 PM
Only 4-5 players deserve max contracts but the league doesn't work like that.

KB-Pau-DH2012
10-19-2012, 09:20 PM
Hell, I'd give his beard alone a max contract. That thing is beastly!

bholly
10-19-2012, 09:30 PM
I answered yes. He's not actually eligible for a true max deal, just the max available for a player with his time in the league, which I think he is worth.

Um, that's always what max means. Hardly any players end up on identical contracts.


Only 4-5 players deserve max contracts but the league doesn't work like that.

This is a ridiculous stance - devoid of any understanding of economics - that always makes me laugh.
Just because the absolute best of the best get the max doesn't mean second tier guys aren't worth it as well - it just means those top guys get paid less relative to their worth than the other guys who get it.
If they reduced the max to $10m you wouldn't say he isn't worth that just because he's not amongst the top 4-5. Therefore not being top 4-5 doesn't necessarily mean you aren't worthy of the max.

Rndy
10-19-2012, 09:30 PM
I would in a heart beat Thunder probably can't afford to keep him though. He hasn't been in the league long enough to get a max deal that would really hurt a team financially. I'd try to get him that deal before he really becomes a starter and puts up insane numbers. Then you get ****ed like the Bulls did.

Bulls being the cheap organization they are really screwed themselves by waiting to give D Rose a Max deal.

Baller1
10-19-2012, 09:31 PM
Absolutely.

JNA17
10-19-2012, 09:31 PM
Hell, I'd give his beard alone a max contract. That thing is beastly!

Baron Davis then should get the MJ contract ($30 mill+ a year) for his beard.

LakersMaster24
10-19-2012, 09:32 PM
No.

Utd7
10-19-2012, 09:32 PM
Yup and he will get it IF he hits the market.

bholly
10-19-2012, 09:32 PM
I would in a heart beat Thunder probably can't afford to keep him though. He hasn't been in the league long enough to get a max deal that would really hurt a team financially. I'd try to get him that deal before he really becomes a starter and puts up insane numbers. Then you get ****ed like the Bulls did.

Bulls being the cheap organization they are really screwed themselves by waiting to give D Rose a Max deal.

How? As far as I can tell it makes absolutely no difference at all when they do it - a max extension/contract is a max extension/contract.

akesh99
10-19-2012, 09:49 PM
Only 4-5 players deserve max contracts but the league doesn't work like that.

This. If OKC wants to keep him, or any other team wants him, they'll have to pay the max. It's just how the league works.

InRoseWeTrust
10-19-2012, 10:31 PM
I would, but I wouldn't in a better NBA "economy."

Given the type of players that receive the max, I'd absolutely give him one. Given the type of players that I think should deserve the max, I don't think he's there yet.

popo85
10-19-2012, 10:41 PM
This was asked during the playoffs, no..

More-Than-Most
10-19-2012, 10:45 PM
He plus Bynum would be amazing....I think he is slightly overrated and does not deserve a max deal but yes I still would

MagicBucsSox
10-19-2012, 11:03 PM
Hell if Roy hibbert got one..........

IndyRealist
10-19-2012, 11:44 PM
In a heartbeat, for just about any team in the league. Given the relative lack of scoring from everyone outside of Durant and Westbrook, can the Thunder afford to lose his efficient shooting off the bench? I seriously doubt it.

LA_Raiders
10-20-2012, 12:09 AM
Easily.

lol, cool picture

seikou8
10-20-2012, 12:13 AM
He plus Bynum would be amazing....I think he is slightly overrated and does not deserve a max deal but yes I still would

if brook lopez , batum and hillbert can get the max so can harden

Heediot
10-20-2012, 12:24 AM
Yes. Even as a 2nd option, teams can afford to pay him Max money as a 2nd option. It's just how the market of the nba is structured.

Kobe2324
10-20-2012, 12:39 AM
I would not but im sure a handful of teams would...with that said the thunder have to decide real soon, and even if they dont sign him it's not like they have any other money to go get anyone even close to his talent, so in the case of the thunder they should offer him a max deal because that's the best player they can get in that price range because they will not have the cap space to get a player somewhere else.

b@llhog24
10-20-2012, 12:42 AM
lol, cool picture

Thanks bro. :cheers:

xxplayerxx23
10-20-2012, 12:49 AM
For sure, and to the Eric gordan thing, if he is healthy he does get one too.

Ebbs
10-20-2012, 12:50 AM
Will he get one yes. Do I think he deserves one? No.

Sadds The Gr8
10-20-2012, 12:54 AM
compared to the garbage contracts in the NBA today, he definitely should get one.

tshwhhh
10-20-2012, 12:56 AM
he will get one because he has potential, thats how a lot of these sorry players get theirs, but dont deliver once the cash is theirs. he will get paid then we will see, plus consider that he is great on the thunder team, fits him well. will that be the case if he goes somewhere else?

Hawkeye15
10-20-2012, 01:04 AM
nope. If he really wants to win a chip, or have the best chance, he needs to go the SA way, and accept a slight sacrifice. 4 years, 44 million should do it.

If he leaves for a max, good luck dude.

Dade County
10-20-2012, 01:06 AM
He's going to get the max available for his time spent in the league (it's not the true Max)

But I voted NO, because I wouldn't pay him that.

Any team that gets him would be lucky though.

Davidgta1
10-20-2012, 02:00 AM
The mavs will

bholly
10-20-2012, 02:20 AM
He's going to get the max available for his time spent in the league (it's not the true Max)

But I voted NO, because I wouldn't pay him that.

Any team that gets him would be lucky though.

So what's the 'true' max? Chris Paul won't be getting the full 10-year-plus max next offseason because he'll only have 8 years experience. Are you saying he isn't getting the 'true' max? Or is the 7-9 year max the true max, and older guys get the true true max? Super max maybe?

There isn't any one max. There's three maxes based on years of experience, and those are different every year, and they don't even apply to guys who were already earning more (or just a bit less).

There is no 'true' max. It isn't a thing.

Lakers4life08
10-20-2012, 02:23 AM
he will get Max,he is star player,but i don't think he will be a superstar....

jam
10-20-2012, 03:48 AM
I found it painful to watch OKC, so I can't evaluate Harden fairly. I did watch him play in the finals and he had an abysmal shooting percentage.

Nonetheless, a player who can score effectively off the bench as a third option on a championship caliber team is going to attract a lot of offers.

I'll let others speak to his potential as a player, but I think it's unlikely he'll sign for below $12 mil per.

Xplicit
10-20-2012, 05:12 AM
Bobcats would pay him that and they will team him up with MKG. But I will vote NO.

rocketfuel
10-20-2012, 05:15 AM
Nope. This is where teams get into trouble.

abe_froman
10-20-2012, 05:36 AM
personally i wouldnt,i want to see/know how he'd handle first option duties(only like 15/20 guys in the league i'd be comfortable giving one to)...but you'd kind of have to if you want him because he'll be offered it

JasonJohnHorn
10-20-2012, 08:55 AM
Um, that's always what max means. Hardly any players end up on identical contracts.


I think you have a misunderstanding of the CBA. During the first lock-out, owners wanted small contracts for rookies. There were guys like Chris Webber and Glen Robinson who were trying to get 100 million dollar rookie contracts. So what the owenrs asked for is that rookies get a pay grade less than vets. There is a rookie 'max' (it varries depending on where you are drafted). Almost every rookie drafted gets a "max" deal when they sign. So technically they are on "max" deals as well.

When their rookie contracts are up, they go up a pay grade. I think after 4 seasons you are eligible to make a 10 million a season. So then you get guys like; Lopez, McGee and Hibbert who all sign "max" deals, but those deals can only start at like 10 million because they've only been in the league for like four seasons. Once those contracts are up, then they can sign for a "true max" deal (which I think falls between 15-18 million, I'm not sure where). This is what a true max contract is.

James Harden will not even be eligible for a 'true max'. The 'max' deal that he will be offered is the same one that will be offered by other players who have been in the league for as long as he has.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_salary_cap#Maximum_individual_contracts_under_ the_CBA

Check it out on Wiki... they have all the details. Thanks for trying to make me look stupid though.

JasonJohnHorn
10-20-2012, 09:15 AM
Only 4-5 players deserve max contracts but the league doesn't work like that.

I think you are right... in fact, I'd go even lower. The only guys for me, who are currently playing that deserve the max contract is LBJ and Kobe, because they do two things. The sell the $#!T out of merchandise and they play at a top tier level. They are an investment. When LBJ left the Cavs, the value of the team literally drop in half. He made that team worth over 300 million and because he sold so much merchandise, made it economically sound to pay him a max deal. He also produces on the court. Kobe Bryant is much the same, and while LAL would be tops inmechandise regardless of whether Kobe is on the team, he helps them sell a lot more.

Jordan was at the highest level you could be as a player, I think we would agree, AND he sold even more merchandise than Kobe and LBJ combined. The Bulls generated 60% of the league's revenue when he was playing, meaning the rest of the league combined was making less than the Bulls. Jordan, in my eyes, was literally worth paying between 50-100 million a season. He generated that much revenue.

When Yao was playing, and Shaq was in his hey day, I'd say they were both worth TRUE max deals, because they both generated so much revenue. Yao didn't deserve a true max deal for what he did on the court though, but rather for the revenue he generated.

That said, when we are talking about Harden and a "max" deal, we are not talking about a true max deal, merely the max that he is eligible for, which I believe is around 10 million. So the question then becomes; Is Harden worth 10 million? I look at it this way. He doesn't generare the kind of revenue that Kobe and James can, so he isn't worth a true max in my eyes, because he's not going to generate that kind of revenue for your team. On the court though, I think most would agree, that he is top 5 (perhaps even top 3) at his position.

Kobe made over 25 million last seaason
Wade made over 15 million (he took a pay cut so the Heat could sign LBJ and Bosh)
Joe Johnson made over 18 million last season
Ray Allen made 10 million
Manu made just about 13 million.
Monta Ellis made 11 million.
Paul Goerge and Eric Gordon were still on rookie contracts and were both making 2-3 million. Harden himself made over 4 million and is set to make over 5 million this season.

So if Harden is eligible for 10 or 11 million, in the context of what Kobe and Wade are making, is he worth that much? I'd say yes, he is. I will ignore Joe Johnson's contract because I think we will all agree that he is over paid. But looking at what Allen and Manu made, and Monta Ellis... is he as good as those players? If so, I think he deserves to be making about as much as they are.

So... the question is really; Does Harden deserve around 10 or 11 million a season. I think most of us would agree that he does.

TyrionLannister
10-20-2012, 09:48 AM
He technically isn't worth the max (14.3 million per year), but it is a lock that if the Thunder can't convince him to take less, someone will offer him the max. Whether it's Dallas, Houston, Detroit, Cleveland, etc. he'll get it, and OKC should match it. Too much is at stake for them to let him walk or trade him.

They may be a small-market team, but it's not like a small-market team has never paid the luxury tax (03-04 Kings, 09 Spurs, 04 T-wolves, and 08-10 Cavs).

Dankster
10-20-2012, 10:05 AM
No way. No offense to him, but he just doesn't seem like a veritable first option on a team.

Now he's got age on his side so if he continues to evolve his game, which i think he will, than he could be spoken in the same context as the elite players in the league.

But there should be some desperate, middle of the row team that'll throw him a max contract. In fact, I'm sure there'll be a few teams recruiting him in the offseason with the idea of throwing a max contract at him.

IndyRealist
10-20-2012, 10:18 AM
I think people attach some notion to max contracts, that they should only be for franchise players or a handful of superstars. It doesn't work that way in the NBA. Lebron James is easily worth twice his contract right now, and in a free market that's what he would be making. The cap is structured for you to have two max or near max players on your roster and still be under the luxury tax. There are not 60 franchise players in the NBA.

It's supply and demand. If someone will pay James Harden max money, then that's where the Thunder are negotiating from. I guarantee if Harden hits the free agent market teams will be renouncing players like crazy to clear space.

kobebabe
10-20-2012, 10:55 AM
No, but someone will. Look out for Harden making his debut to the debate of the worst contract in nba a few years after someone offers him a max contract. Kind of like Joe johnson, Rashad Lewis etc

KnickaBocka.44
10-20-2012, 12:53 PM
Let's look at this in the scope of what the league allows vs. current open market value.

His "mini-max" will allow him to sign for 9 million which will increase each year but I think it's safe to say he would be worth maybe 11-12 on the open market.

This alone makes him worth his hypothetical "mini-max" contract because by the end of 4 years (which is the most that his new contract, with a team other than the Thunder, could stretch for) he would finally be approaching his approximate current open market value.

Cal827
10-20-2012, 02:42 PM
Hell no!

LongWayFromHome
10-20-2012, 02:55 PM
Not enough context. I MIGHT give him a max contract depending on the situation.

mrblisterdundee
10-20-2012, 02:57 PM
I'd give him a max contract if he came to Portland. Given more playing time, he could reach Brandon Roy's level when he was leading the team. He'd be a great compliment to Damian Lillard and LaMarcus Aldridge as part of a potential big three. At this point in his career, he can't get the highest max contract anyway, so get him while he's young.

king4day
10-20-2012, 03:23 PM
Not like his max is 20mil per. It'd be something around 15mil.
With the league set on who's gonna win for the next few years, teams need to take chances.
If OKC let's him become an RFA, he'll get max for sure and I hope the Suns are the ones to give it to him.

Baller1
10-20-2012, 05:52 PM
No, but someone will. Look out for Harden making his debut to the debate of the worst contract in nba a few years after someone offers him a max contract. Kind of like Joe johnson, Rashad Lewis etc

Harden is already better than Joe Johnson, and is better than Rashard Lewis was ever even close to being. And I'm a huge Lewis fan.

TheNumber37
10-20-2012, 06:03 PM
no more than 13 mil in any year. 4 years 50 or 5 years 58.

scottie
10-20-2012, 06:04 PM
No way!

envymamba24
10-20-2012, 06:09 PM
Hell if Roy hibbert got one..........

i would give hibbert one before harden. not to diminish james at all, but hibberts size and athleticism is hard to come by

envymamba24
10-20-2012, 06:10 PM
The mavs will

i think so too

bholly
10-20-2012, 08:02 PM
I think you have a misunderstanding of the CBA. During the first lock-out, owners wanted small contracts for rookies. There were guys like Chris Webber and Glen Robinson who were trying to get 100 million dollar rookie contracts. So what the owenrs asked for is that rookies get a pay grade less than vets. There is a rookie 'max' (it varries depending on where you are drafted). Almost every rookie drafted gets a "max" deal when they sign. So technically they are on "max" deals as well.

When their rookie contracts are up, they go up a pay grade. I think after 4 seasons you are eligible to make a 10 million a season. So then you get guys like; Lopez, McGee and Hibbert who all sign "max" deals, but those deals can only start at like 10 million because they've only been in the league for like four seasons. Once those contracts are up, then they can sign for a "true max" deal (which I think falls between 15-18 million, I'm not sure where). This is what a true max contract is.

James Harden will not even be eligible for a 'true max'. The 'max' deal that he will be offered is the same one that will be offered by other players who have been in the league for as long as he has.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_salary_cap#Maximum_individual_contracts_under_ the_CBA

Check it out on Wiki... they have all the details. Thanks for trying to make me look stupid though.

lol, I understand the CBA plenty. My point was that the maxes for each experience-level (fwiw the three categories are 0-6 years (~$13.7m this year), 7-9 years (~$16.4m), and 10+ years (~$19.1m), not 4 years and $10m) change every year, and those limits often don't even apply for people in the second two categories because their previous contract was enough that the 5% raise they can get takes them above the 'max' based on their experience.
So my point was that just about every player ends up on different salary levels - there is no dollar figure true max deal - everyone's max depends on how long they've been in the league and what their previous salary was, not just young guys. You calculate it for each case. There is no 'true' max.

So by 'true max' you mean max for guys in the top bracket - who've been in the league 10+ years when they signed? So, what, that's Kobe, Dirk, and that's it? Well, cool. In that case you're right, he's not on the true max - but neither is anyone but those two guys, so who cares?

Or maybe you mean guys in the 7-9 years bracket - in which case I guess Kobe and Dirk are on, what, truer max? Truest max? It's gotta be something like that, right?

Harden will get the max for a player with less than 6 years in the league - so the same contract (in terms of the experience bracket it's signed under, not the actual dollar amount) that CP3 is on, and DWill was until last year, and Bynum is on, and Dwight is on, and Rose/Durant/Westbrook are on, etc. Nobody discounts them as not being on true max contracts yet.

If he was signing it right now, for this season, his max would be $13,688,750 (source (http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q16)), and with 5 years at 7.5% raises if he re-signs with OKC we're talking about $14,715,406, $15,819,062, $17,005,491, $18,280,903 in the remaining years. And it could well be bigger next year.
So we're talking about a contract that, by its final year, will be paying him more than the following players earn now: Paul Pierce, Deron Williams, Chris Paul, Chris Bosh, Dwyane Wade, Lebron James, and within a million or so of what Dwight, Pau, and that's not even mentioning the Bynum/Durant/Rose/LMA types on their first post-rookie deal.

So enough with the 'not a true max' ********. Firstly, you don't know what you're talking about (seriously, huge lol at telling me I misunderstand the CBA then saying you think he's due for $10m, and then thinking there's just one veteran category after that), and secondly we're talking about a contract that will go up to $18m a year. It's as much of a max as anyone but the 5 or so most highly paid players in the league is on right now.

I don't mind people differentiating between how big different maxes are - I mind that people think (and repeat) this misleading rubbish about a 'true' max without really knowing how the system works or how big these contracts are relative to each other.
And I mind people (in this case, you) telling people they have a misunderstanding when really it's you who is just working on their own made up figures.

kozelkid
10-20-2012, 08:14 PM
Only 4-5 players deserve max contracts but the league doesn't work like that.

Not at what the max contract currently is, no.

Fact is, relative to how much other players are paid in the NBA, the best players are probably the most underpaid when taken into account their impact vs others.

To answer the question, yes, Harden is definitely worth max.

Vinylman
10-20-2012, 10:08 PM
lol, I understand the CBA plenty. My point was that the maxes for each experience-level (fwiw the three categories are 0-6 years (~$13.7m this year), 7-9 years (~$16.4m), and 10+ years (~$19.1m), not 4 years and $10m) change every year, and those limits often don't even apply for people in the second two categories because their previous contract was enough that the 5% raise they can get takes them above the 'max' based on their experience.
So my point was that just about every player ends up on different salary levels - there is no dollar figure true max deal - everyone's max depends on how long they've been in the league and what their previous salary was, not just young guys. You calculate it for each case. There is no 'true' max.

So by 'true max' you mean max for guys in the top bracket - who've been in the league 10+ years when they signed? So, what, that's Kobe, Dirk, and that's it? Well, cool. In that case you're right, he's not on the true max - but neither is anyone but those two guys, so who cares?

Or maybe you mean guys in the 7-9 years bracket - in which case I guess Kobe and Dirk are on, what, truer max? Truest max? It's gotta be something like that, right?

Harden will get the max for a player with less than 6 years in the league - so the same contract (in terms of the experience bracket it's signed under, not the actual dollar amount) that CP3 is on, and DWill was until last year, and Bynum is on, and Dwight is on, and Rose/Durant/Westbrook are on, etc. Nobody discounts them as not being on true max contracts yet.

If he was signing it right now, for this season, his max would be $13,688,750 (source (http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q16)), and with 5 years at 7.5% raises if he re-signs with OKC we're talking about $14,715,406, $15,819,062, $17,005,491, $18,280,903 in the remaining years. And it could well be bigger next year.So we're talking about a contract that, by its final year, will be paying him more than the following players earn now: Paul Pierce, Deron Williams, Chris Paul, Chris Bosh, Dwyane Wade, Lebron James, and within a million or so of what Dwight, Pau, and that's not even mentioning the Bynum/Durant/Rose/LMA types on their first post-rookie deal.

So enough with the 'not a true max' ********. Firstly, you don't know what you're talking about (seriously, huge lol at telling me I misunderstand the CBA then saying you think he's due for $10m, and then thinking there's just one veteran category after that), and secondly we're talking about a contract that will go up to $18m a year. It's as much of a max as anyone but the 5 or so most highly paid players in the league is on right now.

I don't mind people differentiating between how big different maxes are - I mind that people think (and repeat) this misleading rubbish about a 'true' max without really knowing how the system works or how big these contracts are relative to each other.
And I mind people (in this case, you) telling people they have a misunderstanding when really it's you who is just working on their own made up figures.

Not taking sides in the argument you are having but i have bolded some inaccuracies in your post

1. Max Salaries for players coming off their rookie contracts ARE FIXED and having nothing to do with their prior salary because their last salary plus 5% doesn't come close to the max for a 0-6 player.... so Harden's number for year 1 is hard and fast and determined by the salary cap number

2. You have misrepresented what Hardens out year numbers will be... the 7.5% increase DOESN'T compound as you have laid out... HE CAN NOT MAKE $18.28 million in his final or 5th year as you have described.... The 7.5% is calculated on the base year contract to establish a maximum $ increase... that $ increase can then be added to each subsequent year. Harden's max contract is no different than Westbrook $17,769,374

3. You also contend that his number might go HIGHER... this is highly unlikely since currently the max contract calculation isn't supported by the current salary cap. The salary cap did not increase this past year but the $ threshold for max deals went up 5.8% which was agreed upon during the CBA negotiations. Next years number will likely GO DOWN because it has to be supported by the salary cap.


Will Harden get a max deal? Doubt it

Why? Because OKC can simply let him become a RFA and the most he will get is 4 years which they can match and which isn't a MAX DEAL...

bholly
10-20-2012, 10:30 PM
Not taking sides in the argument you are having but i have bolded some inaccuracies in your post

1. Max Salaries for players coming off their rookie contracts ARE FIXED and having nothing to do with their prior salary because their last salary plus 5% doesn't come close to the max for a 0-6 player.... so Harden's number for year 1 is hard and fast and determined by the salary cap number

2. You have misrepresented what Hardens out year numbers will be... the 7.5% increase DOESN'T compound as you have laid out... HE CAN NOT MAKE $18.28 million in his final or 5th year as you have described.... The 7.5% is calculated on the base year contract to establish a maximum $ increase... that $ increase can then be added to each subsequent year. Harden's max contract is no different than Westbrook $17,769,374

3. You also contend that his number might go HIGHER... this is highly unlikely since currently the max contract calculation isn't supported by the current salary cap. The salary cap did not increase this past year but the $ threshold for max deals went up 5.8% which was agreed upon during the CBA negotiations. Next years number will likely GO DOWN because it has to be supported by the salary cap.


Will Harden get a max deal? Doubt it

Why? Because OKC can simply let him become a RFA and the most he will get is 4 years which they can match and which isn't a MAX DEAL...

Wow, good post. Thanks.

1. Right, which was why I said in the previous paragraph that it's only for the next two categories that the experience-level-maxes often don't have an impact (and mentioned below that Harden would be getting the <6 year max). The sentence you bolded should've read something more like "everyone's max depends on either how long they've been in the league or what their previous salary was or both, not just young guys", but I just wrote it more simply.

2. Yep, that's my bad. Lazy calculating/wasn't thinking.

3. lol, yeah, totally agree - and I've made that argument a bunch of times too, but I've found it's way too big of a headache to get into that issue and the RBI numbers and the current artificial floor and all that unless it's absolutely necessary - people on here are pretty resistant to the notion of the cap going down, because they haven't seen it happen for a while and they all have dollar signs in their eyes trying to figure out their team's possible acquisitions (although maybe there's less of that now that the NYPost guy isn't pushing the CP3/Nash-to-NYK rumors anymore).

Anyway, great post. Good to see someone on here with some cap knowledge. Thanks.

Still, I think my point stands that the notion of 'not a true max' that everyone is justifying this with is ridiculous - he's still getting the same category of max that a huge amount of the big max guys are on.

bholly
10-20-2012, 10:38 PM
Although I disagree with your last point - if he signed a 4-year, most-they-can-offer offersheet with someone else, I think that would still be considered a max.
Sure it's not technically the maximum he could sign for given the length and raises, but I think it's still considered a max - otherwise we have to start saying Amar'e isn't on a max, and Phoenix didn't offer Gordon a max, and you have to go back and edit all the pre-Decision conversation to say other teams could offer LBJ a 'near-max', and you could argue someone like JJ isn't on a max because he could be on higher if his first Atlanta contract could've had higher raises, and it all gets silly.
I think the non-Bird-rights max is still considered a 'max' in common parlance.

Vinylman
10-20-2012, 10:43 PM
Wow, good post. Thanks.

1. Right, which was why I said in the previous paragraph that it's only for the next two categories that the experience-level-maxes often don't have an impact (and mentioned below that Harden would be getting the <6 year max). The sentence you bolded should've read something more like "everyone's max depends on either how long they've been in the league or what their previous salary was or both, not just young guys", but I just wrote it more simply.

2. Yep, that's my bad. Lazy calculating/wasn't thinking.

3. lol, yeah, totally agree - and I've made that argument a bunch of times too, but I've found it's way too big of a headache to get into that issue and the RBI numbers and the current artificial floor and all that unless it's absolutely necessary - people on here are pretty resistant to the notion of the cap going down, because they haven't seen it happen for a while and they all have dollar signs in their eyes trying to figure out their team's possible acquisitions (although maybe there's less of that now that the NYPost guy isn't pushing the CP3/Nash-to-NYK rumors anymore).

Anyway, great post. Good to see someone on here with some cap knowledge. Thanks.

Still, I think my point stands that the notion of 'not a true max' that everyone is justifying this with is ridiculous - he's still getting the same category of max that a huge amount of the big max guys are on.

There is no doubt in my mind that he will get a MAX 4 year deal... teams will gladly take him for that price and will be more than happy to stick OKC with him for that price :D

1. gotcha
2. yeah... i use to think it compounded so not a biggie
3. yeah... the thing i haven't figured out is if this is why OKC is not signing him at this point (ie they are betting the MAX will go down)

Anyway, he will be BY far the best FA available at his position which is extremely thin to start with

Vinylman
10-20-2012, 10:46 PM
Although I disagree with your last point - if he signed a 4-year, most-they-can-offer offersheet with someone else, I think that would still be considered a max.
Sure it's not technically the maximum he could sign for given the length and raises, but I think it's still considered a max - otherwise we have to start saying Amar'e isn't on a max, and Phoenix didn't offer Gordon a max, and you have to go back and edit all the pre-Decision conversation to say other teams could offer LBJ a 'near-max', and you could argue someone like JJ isn't on a max because he could be on higher if his first Atlanta contract could've had higher raises, and it all gets silly.
I think the non-Bird-rights max is still considered a 'max' in common parlance.

It is pretty much Parsing ... but the reality is a guy like Westbrook's contract IS what a max looks like.... he got max years and max raises

but again... it does get a little dumb at a point :D

bholly
10-20-2012, 10:48 PM
re: 3. I'm pretty sure that if they sign him to max extension now they don't put a $ figure on it until the max ends up being announced, and then he gets that - so his first year salary will be the same no matter which way they do it.
I think most likely they just haven't really decided what the hell they're going to do yet.

bholly
10-20-2012, 11:02 PM
One thing I think is interesting is that if OKC decide they can afford him they have an incentive to let him sign somewhere else and match (at least, if they value the lower raises more than locking him up for an extra year), but that if they decide they can't afford him then they have an incentive to re-sign him to the best they can offer with full raises.
The reason for the latter is that if they let him go they get nothing, and if they S+T him they have to worry about figuring out a location he wants to go (which likely means giving him to another possible contender, and that they won't have their choice of assets), and if they just trade him now they'll miss out on him for this year's playoffs and get a discounted price (because there's no way he'd extend-and-trade).
So if they're letting him go, it seems the obvious move is to re-sign him, in which case they have until the 2014 trade deadline to trade him without getting hit by the tax payments (because team salary for tax purposes is determined on the last day of the regular season). By re-signing him they get the most flexibility in moving him (ie anywhere they want that can take on salary, not just where he wants), so will likely get the best return (the team they're trading with won't have any 'you have to deal with us because this is where he wants to go' leverage) - so that seems like the best move for them (if they decide they can't keep him).
If that's the case, they have the incentive to make his deal as big as possible, because it means giving him they paycheck they want to give him, and costing one of their competitors more in the long run.
Sort of sucks for him, though, if they re-sign him then trade him to Charlotte for MKG or something, so maybe they wouldn't do that to him - but ignoring his feelings, it's the best move for them (if they decide they can't keep him).

But yeah, just about no matter what happens he's getting at least the non-Bird max.