PDA

View Full Version : why sign anyone that is not a superstar to a multi year contract?



utl768
02-16-2013, 11:55 AM
seems like every multi year contract handed out for average players always seems to go sour

you would think nba teams especially small markets would crave flexibility and cap space on a year to year basis

another factor is that rarely does a guy go from average to superstar in the nba, if you dont emerge within 2-3 years coming in it usually wont change so signing guys for potential is a bust

Chronz
02-16-2013, 01:10 PM
Potential still exists. Theres this idea circling the NBA called "The 2nd Draft" where teams take guys who are talented enough to get drafted high, but didnt work out in their prior destination, that are young enough to improve.

It may not always work but you dont want to be the guy to miss out on bargain deals like Chauncey was for Detroit all those years ago.

I think the max contracts given to guys like Bargnani are the biggest problem.

Maybe Im not understanding the question but you give multi year contracts to nonstars for 2 reasons. Because your matching market value or because your trying to save money by locking in a player before he hits his peak. Then there is the coangelo reason, which is unexplainable.

abe_froman
02-16-2013, 01:18 PM
2 reasons

1.just because you arent a star doesnt mean your not productive/worthy of a multi year deal
2.its a competitive market and to get better someone will offer him a multi year deal as incentive not to go to your team,but rather come to mine

seriously if you only offer one year deals(mind you there's a salary cap)no one,but the absolute worst players that are rejected by the 29 others, will sign with your team

utl768
02-16-2013, 02:10 PM
im talking more for teams that have no chance going into the season

charlotte seems to never have cap space because they take on bad contracts and hand out dumb multi year deals

you would think a team like that would just sign a bunch of ppl to 1 year deals every year and develop there draft picks

TyrionLannister
02-16-2013, 02:13 PM
To put it plainly, because if you don't someone else will.

D-Leethal
02-16-2013, 02:13 PM
Because if you won't, someone else will, and you will be stuck with garbage players.

D-Leethal
02-16-2013, 02:14 PM
To put it plainly, because if you don't someone else will.

Damn same exact time.

Chronz
02-16-2013, 02:20 PM
For those successive posts, you guys should mental high five right now

TyrionLannister
02-16-2013, 02:26 PM
Done. Still shuddering lol.

Matrix3132
02-16-2013, 02:32 PM
Potential still exists. Theres this idea circling the NBA called "The 2nd Draft" where teams take guys who are talented enough to get drafted high, but didnt work out in their prior destination, that are young enough to improve.

It may not always work but you dont want to be the guy to miss out on bargain deals like Chauncey was for Detroit all those years ago.

I think the max contracts given to guys like Bargnani are the biggest problem.

Maybe Im not understanding the question but you give multi year contracts to nonstars for 2 reasons. Because your matching market value or because your trying to save money by locking in a player before he hits his peak. Then there is the coangelo reason, which is unexplainable.

Bargnani does NOT have a max contract, he makes $10 million a year, half what dirk makes and almost a 1/3 of what kobe makes

hugepatsfan
02-16-2013, 02:34 PM
Because if you don't then no superstar would sign with you because the rest of your team would be terrible.

Chronz
02-16-2013, 02:36 PM
Bargnani does NOT have a max contract, he makes $10 million a year, half what dirk makes and almost a 1/3 of what kobe makes
I dont see why your naming those players. A Max deal doesn't have a single stable figure, it simply means the maximum a team can offer. If he doesn't have a max contract then so be it but your not proving it with the facts you mentioned.

Regardless, it was a contract well above market value. Far too much money for a player of his caliber.

utl768
02-16-2013, 02:36 PM
Bargnani does NOT have a max contract, he makes $10 million a year, half what dirk makes and almost a 1/3 of what kobe makes

which is insane for a team like toronto going nowhere fast

Matrix3132
02-16-2013, 03:50 PM
I dont see why your naming those players. A Max deal doesn't have a single stable figure, it simply means the maximum a team can offer. If he doesn't have a max contract then so be it but your not proving it with the facts you mentioned.

Regardless, it was a contract well above market value. Far too much money for a player of his caliber.

Fair enough, I just get kind of irritated the way some people (not necessarily you) throw around terms like "max deal" and make it seem as if bargnani makes the same as kobe or lebron. I named the other players because, given the cap situation, I think it's interesting to consider that at this point, a lot of teams would probably rather have 2 bargnani's than one dirk for $20 mil of cap space.

I just get irritated when some people ignore the fluctuation of market value for different players from year to year and just treat player salaries as if we should rank players from best to worst and pay them accordingly, lebron makes $20 million, durant makes $19.5, kobe makes $19 mil.......

PatriotsGirl
02-17-2013, 09:39 PM
If you just paid the superstars on your team the big money, everyone else would resent them and teamwork would be a thing of the past.

IndyRealist
02-17-2013, 10:19 PM
This is the exact kind of thinking that led to the 2012-13 Lakers.

Lab Rat Robby
02-17-2013, 11:51 PM
i actually like this idea a little but, i'd go a step further. why not only sign un-drafteds, young eligible foreigners, d leaguers, rookies, restricted free agents, and bonafide superstars?

so instead of only 1 year deals. every contract offer is a multi-year minimum deal, rookie scale contract, matched offer restricted free agent, or max deal desperate attempt to sign a bonafide superstar.

some of those multi year minimums are gonna pan out. the others could be cut, they aren't making anything anyway. that fear of being cut is good motivation too.

there'd never be a problem matching restricted free agents. don't wanna match a guy for some reason? cash them in on the trade market. feed the bench a few motivated rookies.

the team would never miss out on a chance to land a lebron or chris paul. why wouldn't a superstar want to play with a team full of highly motivated cheap young talent?

i'm pretty sure the team wouldn't even care about attendance. they wouldn't be paying an expensive salary budget. i'd bet attendance wouldn't be a problem though.

JPS
02-18-2013, 12:06 AM
If you just paid the superstars on your team the big money, everyone else would resent them and teamwork would be a thing of the past.

It already is

sventhedog
02-18-2013, 07:04 AM
that's just how it works, you try to invest on something you think can be someone but so much can happen while you wait for him reach the conclusion.