PDA

View Full Version : Good Idea or Bad Idea? NBA should allow ONE Max contract per roster.



TheNumber37
01-26-2013, 01:48 PM
I was just reading the Josh Smith thread about him being claiming to be a max player and it got me thinking...
Firstly, No, Josh Smith is not a max player.

Secondly, Would it make any sense to allow NBA teams to place a sort of franchise tag on a player (not restricting them like the NFL), but only allowing teams to pay that ONE player at the max? If teams want to have more than one max deal on the books, they should have to pay more to do this.

30 NBA teams. Are there really 30 players worth the Max? Certainly not, but it might be a way for the NBA to help distribute some of that talent across other teams.
Surely, teams could get around this by paying slightly under the max - but those players with larger egos, just may go play for the true max elsewhere.

I must note, that I do think there should be an asterisk for teams that draft players or acquire them on draft day (or maybe even in their rookie seasons) as to allow them to max out player that they have spent time developing ( A La Harden)

Thoughts? Tweaks?

JNoel
01-26-2013, 01:50 PM
Luxury tax. The new CBA kills teams over the cap.

I Rock Shaqs
01-26-2013, 01:55 PM
Only one player per team on NBA 2K13 should be allowed to have a 90 OVR player.

Hawkize31
01-26-2013, 02:11 PM
If an NBA team wanted more than one max player, couldn't they sign a player to a max deal and then sing a second player to a deal worth like 100,000 dollars less? Technically not a max deal, but its basically the same thing.

gotoHcarolina52
01-26-2013, 02:17 PM
The players union would never approve it.

iliketurtles24
01-26-2013, 02:32 PM
interesting thought. i see your point, but it wont happen.

Quinnsanity
01-26-2013, 02:42 PM
No for several reasons. First of all, what do you do about a team like OKC that drafted their max players? Are you basically saying that you can only keep a superstar for four years if you have another one on the roster? Also consider the loopholes. What if a player took one dollar less than max? Realistically you'd have to make the rule something like "the second highest paid player on the team can make no more than $3 million less than the max", but that's illegal by antitrust law. It could be negotiated into a CBA, but the players would NEVER agree to it, meaning the league couldn't enforce that rule by antitrust law.

The proper cap structure would be what the NFL has. A hard cap with no individual max. That way if a team wanted to pay LeBron $50 million they could (and honestly that's probably what he's worth), they just wouldn't be able to afford a good team around him. Conversely, it would make players decide realistically if they want to take the money or play for a good team, now that decision is almost made for them, and finally I think it would do something about crappy players getting max deals because without a max for them to point to they'd have to start at a real number from a negotiating standpoint, and with a hard cap teams wouldn't waste $15 million on guys like Roy Hibbert.

HouRealCoach
01-26-2013, 03:12 PM
I like it but it would cause too much jealousy with all of these divas today

topdog
01-26-2013, 08:44 PM
Like others have said, the NBPA will not go for it. It was hard enough to get the harsh luxury tax penalty. Another thought along the same lines would be for teams to have assigned pay level slots i.e. X number of Mid-level contracts, X number of Rookie contracts, X number of Max Contracts and Unlimited one year deals.

Phenomenonsense
01-26-2013, 09:51 PM
Can't you just give them a Max contract minus 1 dollar and get around that fee? Seems like a silly idea.

Hellcrooner
01-26-2013, 10:38 PM
league needs less restrictions not more.

Sinattle
01-26-2013, 10:50 PM
league needs less restrictions not more.

Says the Lakers fan with 3 of the biggest contracts in the NBA

OceanSpray
01-27-2013, 12:44 AM
league needs less restrictions not more.

You want LeBron, Durant, Chris Paul, Rondo, Wade, and Carmelo on LAL as well?

rickshaw
01-27-2013, 01:10 AM
Maybe only one to a player not drafted by you. Don't want to hurt teams like OKC who draft well, and would have to trade all but one person because of it.

MrfadeawayJB
01-27-2013, 01:17 AM
I like the idea of having strict salary caps better. For example a team can sign 2 max players or even near 3 but the rest of the team is made up of cheap minimum contracts. Set a salary cap (say 60 mil) and dont allow ANY TEAM to go over it. Yay small markets!

Hellcrooner
01-27-2013, 01:39 AM
You want LeBron, Durant, Chris Paul, Rondo, Wade, and Carmelo on LAL as well?

do you think if ther was free market they would all of them sign for say 20 million each in the same team and average 12 points each and miss the asg because of it?

or would they each of them get 40 millions a eyar somwhere else?

With free market there woudlnt be more than 2 player spairing

JasonJohnHorn
01-27-2013, 05:36 PM
Josh Smith is a max player in that he is better than some guys who are getting paid a max contract.

Should teams only be allowed one max player? It sounds like a good idea at first, but then you gotta think: What will happen? No trades can be done for a max-player unless another max player is involved. And what if teams sign a guy to slightly less than a max, say, instead of a max deal starting at 15 mil, they start him off a 14.5 mil? Does that count? It would defeat the spirit of the rule.

Something needs to be done about guys being offered max-deals, but it is up to the owners to simply not shell out that kind of money. But owners are always trying to outbid each other and raising the value of players who haven't even made an All-Star team.

Cal827
01-27-2013, 05:44 PM
Nah. It's up to the team what they want to do. Also, imagine the uproar from fans, if a small market team was basically guaranteed to lose a star player (E.g. Durant and Westbrook), just cause they were restricted from giving him as much as possible.

Is in the discretion of the owner whether or not they want to pay out the @$$. If it ends badly (Eddie Curry and many others), then that's the owner's problem.

MAKE SMARTER DECISIONS

Cal827
01-27-2013, 05:45 PM
Nah. It's up to the team what they want to do. Also, imagine the uproar from fans, if a small market team was basically guaranteed to lose a star player (E.g. Durant and Westbrook), just cause they were restricted from giving him as much as possible.

Is in the discretion of the owner whether or not they want to pay out the @$$. If it ends badly (Eddie Curry and many others), then that's the owner's problem.

MAKE SMARTER DECISIONS