Moratorium, please: No more using "max contract" argument RE: Francis

here here

 

hear hear....ahh forget it.

 

Someone posted a thread similar to this a few weeks back [comparing max players], it was a good post then, and it's still a good post now.

 

DonKnutts,

A few points why "max-contract" is brought up....

1) Having a max-contract players sends a message to that player and the fans that he's our MAIN MAN and that we must live with him as our "star player." What does that tell you about our chances to win a title and bring in more talent?

2) Comparing other players "bad contracts" is like saying, "The grass is browner over there, so that makes my brown-grass look greener."

3) Remember the collective bargaining agreement in the late 90's? Players like Garnett, Shaq, Juwan Howard got their contracts BEFORE that agreement was made. That was before changes were made: rookie caps, current team can offer more than competing teams, and max-contract caps. Those rules didn't exist when Garnett, Shaq, Howard got theirs.

4) And because of the current rules, we have to play by them. And that means we are stuck with Francis contract until a trade occurs.

5) And no matter what you say, his production over the last 4 years is not worth 85 Million. Sorry.

 

well didnt he just sign a contract extension beginning of last year? (Yao's rookie year?)

So he wasnt a max player until last year and he had a good year last year, he is struggling this year but I see him shaking it off in time for the playoffs.

J

 

and Tim Duncan for 27, and $12,676,125 per year. I must say that Spurs got the best deal

 

1. I do not believe Francis is overpaid.

2. Your list is relatively meaningless. All it proves, at best, is that some teams potentially overpaid worse than the Rockets. To prove anything, you'd have to do the legwork and find out if there are other players, more valuable than Francis, not on rookie contracts, who are paid less. Then you could work about setting a relative market value. It's easy to say "worse deals exist," but it does not follow that a particular deal in question is good.

So, while I think you're right, your method doesn't work to prove it.

 

Conversely, just because better deals exist, it doesn't mean your particular deal is bad. Give me anyone's salary and then I can find you someone who is just as qualified, who is paid less. Happens in every day life. We have Cuttino Mobley who is a very good player and gets paid relatively little.
Also, business deals are not made in a vacuum. If we took everyone's salary and their production numbers and compared them, there will be obvious statistics that point to 'good' deals. However you can't just separate money and numbers from everything else beause you won't be able to sign a free agent just because he's free. And you won't necessarily be able to replace your current player when he comes a free agent, at that specific time he becomes a free agent. Just because Tim Duncan was available a couple years ago, doesn't mean we had a chance to sign him (realistically). And just because Steve Francis became a free agent and wanted max money, doesn't mean we really had another PG on the market we could replace him with if we decided not to pay him max money.
A thousand dollars for a gallon of water is a 'bad' deal, unless you're in the desert dying of thirst. Most of the time I think Rox org. got the best for what was available. (Matt Maloney & Kelvin Cato notwithstanding).

 

Actually, they signed him 7years for $122M, that $17.4M per year.

 

I agree. He has brought so much to the Spurs for a small sum of money. The value of the Spurs while under Tim Duncan has risen dramatically.

 

Last Seasons steve francis was not over paid but this year he is. You are paid that kind of money to put up numbers. With that said its not a guarentee he will have poor stats for the rest of his contract. I do see steve getting decent stats the rest of the year and the next couple years as he gets comfortable with his role.

 

And posting up a bunch of max salaries doesnt justify francis making max money. So what if a bunch of players make max money, either they deserve it (shaq, duncan, Kg), teams made a huge mistake (grant hill) or the team has endless amounts of cash so they are overpaid to make sure they dont go nowhere. (everyone on Dallas, Portland and New York)

 

In this salary cap era, contracts are a very legitimate concern. Steve does not produce at a level that is consistant with his contract. Just because there are other players that are also overpaid, does not mean that Steve's being overpaid can be dismissed.

When the rules change, some people are left in the lurch. Do you think Portland is happy paying Damon Stoudamire so much money? They got screwed when the new CBA was signed. We got screwed when the league changed the rules to allow zone defense. Steve was probably worth a max contract when he signed it, but I don't want to pay Duncan money for 16 points on <40% shooting and the one of the worst A/TO ratio for starting PGs in the league.

When you can replace the production of a player with someone who has a much smaller contract, that is how you can tell they are overpaid. Steve's production this year was not substantially better than Charlie Ward's was in New York. The Spurs signed Ward for a near minimum contract. That is why Francis is overpaid and why his contract is fair game for discussion in why he should be traded.

 

If other team stupid[over paid], doesn't mean rox need to be stupid too.

 

StupidMoniker, well said; my sentiments exactly. And "Barney," declaring that something can't be discussed on this board is like throwing meat at a hungry lion. Wow, did you just want to stir up the issue?

 

They bounce, dribble, pass, shoot and dunk a a ball with air inside it. They also entertain and help keep our minds away from serious things but they are way way overpaid for just doing the very thing that they like doing.

 

Correct me if i'm wrong
but aren't those figures just for the current year

I think the argument is more along the lines that we will eventually be paying steve a LARGER max contract that will rival some of those larger figures you have there

and due to stevie not showing any real improvement over the last few years, we should avoid being stuck with an extremely overpaid player if he doesn't provide higher all star quality.

The other argument is the marginal difference. No matter what steve is getting, it's what is feasible and plausible to get with the same amount of cash. This is stuff like a just as efficient point guard + a near star forward.

 

EXACTLY!!! How in the hell is the creator of this thread going to remove the relevance of overpaying players from the equation as far as judging players is concerned. Nice try though.

 

Just because you get paid to do something you like doesn't mean you're overpaid.