$30 Million Club

That's interesting. As often it is said that max players are working at a discount from their true market value, I have to think that the most expensive players probably are not. They are the ones that are paid the most because they are towards the end of a long career of routinely making the max, and the built-in raises must eventually bring them past their utility value. Kobe Bryant is probably more a liability than an asset this coming year. Howard making $30m when he's 37 years old is unlikely to be worth that contract -- but it might be worth signing those contracts anyway because of the performance they give you at a discount in the earlier years of that contract. So maybe we will keep seeing $30m players because of what teams hope to get 3 years prior.

 

I really, really doubt Howard will get a 5 year max contract at 32.

 

The only way it would even be worth considering is if we had won two straight championships. In which case, by all means, pay the man.

 

If Harden's already picked up the 5-year, we won't be able to offer it to Howard.

 

Howard's comes first because he will opt out in 3 years.

 

Yeah he might do that.

 

Why do athlete salaries have to increase over the life of the contract? Why not just agree to take the same amount of money each year and avoid eating up cap near the end of the contract?

 

If I were a max player I'd write my contract up in such a way that I only played 12-20 road games per year to ensure I'm getting closer to full value for my services.

 

Don't we have bird years to sign these players? At any one point it seems like the cap hit will only be around $45-50mil for these two players, plus all the exceptions we'll be entitled too for being an over-the-cap team.
Lin and Asik can be re-upped later for a lot less money than they are being paid now (or at least we can trade them if the free agency market is too strong for them).

 

Because that will ruin the amount of money they can make in the future. You can only increase a certain percentage salary of your max each season, if you stay the same then you will lose money over the long run; millions of dollars.

 

they can and they do

danny granger is on a flat contract

in all honesty, when total payout is looked at, bird right contracts and the regular inflation contract saves a team more money

a team spends more in total for flat and diminishing contracts because you have to pay more upfront

 

#BeWell.

 

Words like "underpaid" and "overpaid" are often thrown around without much context, particularly in light of the price ceiling that is placed on the superstar-level players (see: LeBron James) and the bare minimum being allotted to rookies (see: Chandler Parsons). In relation to those players, nearly every other player in the market is "overpaid". However, you can't actually field a team full of those players. For one, you can't afford it for all of your mandatory roster spots, and for two, there aren't enough of those players to go around that you can realistically expect to have more than two or three per team (barring a fantastic draft a la the Thunder).

It makes more sense to look at players in "silos", where you take the superstars and sort of set them aside, take the productive rookies and set those aside, and then look at everyone else in the middle as the actual free agent market. The rookies are a matter of proper drafting and development, so evaluating free agents with respect to rookies is unfair to both, since they are essentially completely different markets and completely different population pools. The superstars command their own silo because their performance completely outstrips their pay but can't get what they are actually worth.

It's the middle silo of free-agent, non-superstar veterans who make up the majority of the market. This constitutes about 80% of the actual labor force available. If you plotted those guys, and only those guys, on a line, you'd probably see a pretty even distribution of players who are "overpaid" and "underpaid".

In terms of contract price, on one end of that spectrum are guys like Josh Smith, who command max contracts (he actually be worth the money if you did a price-performance graph and plotted him along that line). On the other end you have guys like Carlos Delfino who don't get paid a ton of money, but do their job on the court (as opposed to, say, Royce White).

So the real problem for this 80% is one of perception, not of reality. "Everyone" is overpaid because there is a sizable minority of the population which, fairly or not, is being included in the price-performance analysis. Most directly, the guys at the top of this pile, the Josh Smiths, are being compared to the superstar silo due to no fault of their own, but entirely because there is a price ceiling being imposed on the players.

By the way, this perception actually reflects very well what is actually happening - the top tier of players are participating in the union and allowing themselves to be underpaid in exchange for the other players getting a larger portion of the pie, in addition to the communal benefits, insurance, and additional negotiating leverage (hopefully) being provided in exchange.

 

LeBron James might be the biggest bargain in sports contracts in today's game. I'd easily pay him $50,000,000 to play on my team (If I were management) seeing as he immediately makes your team a contender, cool with the kids, and sells out your arena.

 

Howard is going to opt out at 30

 

And will probably be considered the best player.. yes... dare I say, better than HIM (jeremy lin)

kekekeke

 

Howard's dreaming if he thinks he's getting another full-max WITH the maximum years allowed.

Plus that money's already owed to Lin... sooo.

 

Agree completely. The sky would be the limit for Lebron if the CBA didn't cap salaries.

Obviously it's absurd to contemplate what kind of money Dwight Howard might fetch on the open market four years from now. How about we focus on 2013-14 and maybe 2014-15?