LeBron Might Be Correct About Max Contracts
The NBA offseason is honestly my favorite part about the NBA. The movement of players and the impact that one move has on the rest of the season is unlike any other league. Look at the Chris Paul and Paul George trades: The Warriors went from having zero competition in the west, to maybe a couple teams that could compete (they're still gonna win the west no problem). But there's one trend in recent years that's shaking up how NBA free agency operates, and that's max contracts.
Even just a few years ago max contracts weren't really anything anyone worried about. With a salary cap of about $70 million it was hard for any team to offer a max deal, unless it was for a homegrown player right out of his rookie contract. Then, the NBA received new TV deals, and the salary cap sky rocketed, as right now it is about $99 million. That's a $29 million increase in the span of 2 years, enough space for a max contract right there. 7 players were signed to max contracts during the 2016 Free Agency, two of them signed with a different tema in the process: Al Horford and Kevin Durant.
Kevin Durant's free agency is the pinnacle of what we as NBA fans can expect to come, a bunch of teams offering max contracts because they can, and letting non-monetary factors determine where the player signs. Now, the idea of max contracts lay out both positive and negative results. The positive result I had always seen, and the negative result was recently brought up by LeBron James via this tweet:
The Pro and Con of Max Salaries in the NBA
Pro
As exemplified in Kevin Durant's case, having max contracts puts the emphasis of money at the bottom when determining where to play. It no longer becomes who has the most cap space, but rather which team is a better fit for the player. For Durant, the Warriors, Celtics, and Thunder all offered the same amount, and his decision was about play style and win potential. Teams cannot out bid for a player, giving each team a shot at an impact player. Which is ultimately what lead Greg Monroe to land in Milwaukee. Although it didn't quite work out, the Bucks still picked up a heavily sought after star. Monroe chose the Bucks over the Knicks and the Lakers, and in previous free agencies where max contracts weren't common, the Bucks aren't so fortunate. Because of the max offers, parity is seen amongst teams bidding for a player.
Con
However LeBron brought up a point that shines the max contract rule in a different light, and that is are max contracts truely what the market price is? In Steph Curry's case, is he really a $40M/year player? There have never been a contract worth $40M per year in the four major North American sports yet, so it's hard to determine what exactly makes a player who should get $40M. But considering that no other team was in contention to even offer Steph a contract, in an era where max contracts aren't status quo, do the Warriors even go through the trouble of offering that much? Or do they offer him enough for him not to seek a deal elsewhere. I feel like teams at this point are offering max contracts just to offer max contracts. Because they have the cap space and that's the limit so why not go all in and offer the limit? Now according to LeBron Steph is underpaid, but I think the majority of max contracts are over paying the players. Al Horford of all people also received a max contract, despite being on the wrong side of 30. Because teams are able to offer him that much money, that's what they offered him. Other leagues don't have the same restrictions that the NBA does, and I feel that, while the MLB will sometimes have lucrative deals, most players are payed what the market thinks they should get.
Perhaps the max contract is necessary to keep an even playing field, but in this day and age it seems that they are more of nuisance for teams trying to get that impact player. In my opinion max contracts aren't quite that necessary when the salary is expected to exceed $100 million real soon. So, while I hate to admit, in a way I agree with something LeBron James said.
By Jared Colbert
Twitter: @Jared_atHome
Even just a few years ago max contracts weren't really anything anyone worried about. With a salary cap of about $70 million it was hard for any team to offer a max deal, unless it was for a homegrown player right out of his rookie contract. Then, the NBA received new TV deals, and the salary cap sky rocketed, as right now it is about $99 million. That's a $29 million increase in the span of 2 years, enough space for a max contract right there. 7 players were signed to max contracts during the 2016 Free Agency, two of them signed with a different tema in the process: Al Horford and Kevin Durant.
Kevin Durant's free agency is the pinnacle of what we as NBA fans can expect to come, a bunch of teams offering max contracts because they can, and letting non-monetary factors determine where the player signs. Now, the idea of max contracts lay out both positive and negative results. The positive result I had always seen, and the negative result was recently brought up by LeBron James via this tweet:
The Pro and Con of Max Salaries in the NBA
Pro
As exemplified in Kevin Durant's case, having max contracts puts the emphasis of money at the bottom when determining where to play. It no longer becomes who has the most cap space, but rather which team is a better fit for the player. For Durant, the Warriors, Celtics, and Thunder all offered the same amount, and his decision was about play style and win potential. Teams cannot out bid for a player, giving each team a shot at an impact player. Which is ultimately what lead Greg Monroe to land in Milwaukee. Although it didn't quite work out, the Bucks still picked up a heavily sought after star. Monroe chose the Bucks over the Knicks and the Lakers, and in previous free agencies where max contracts weren't common, the Bucks aren't so fortunate. Because of the max offers, parity is seen amongst teams bidding for a player.
Con
However LeBron brought up a point that shines the max contract rule in a different light, and that is are max contracts truely what the market price is? In Steph Curry's case, is he really a $40M/year player? There have never been a contract worth $40M per year in the four major North American sports yet, so it's hard to determine what exactly makes a player who should get $40M. But considering that no other team was in contention to even offer Steph a contract, in an era where max contracts aren't status quo, do the Warriors even go through the trouble of offering that much? Or do they offer him enough for him not to seek a deal elsewhere. I feel like teams at this point are offering max contracts just to offer max contracts. Because they have the cap space and that's the limit so why not go all in and offer the limit? Now according to LeBron Steph is underpaid, but I think the majority of max contracts are over paying the players. Al Horford of all people also received a max contract, despite being on the wrong side of 30. Because teams are able to offer him that much money, that's what they offered him. Other leagues don't have the same restrictions that the NBA does, and I feel that, while the MLB will sometimes have lucrative deals, most players are payed what the market thinks they should get.
Perhaps the max contract is necessary to keep an even playing field, but in this day and age it seems that they are more of nuisance for teams trying to get that impact player. In my opinion max contracts aren't quite that necessary when the salary is expected to exceed $100 million real soon. So, while I hate to admit, in a way I agree with something LeBron James said.
By Jared Colbert
Twitter: @Jared_atHome
Comments
Post a Comment