konex
07-09-2015, 09:43 PM
http://www.cbssports.com/nba/writer/ken-berger/25237635/nba-max-money-explained-for-every-anthony-davis-theres-a-cory-joseph
The problem is, outside the rarified air where Davis and other top-shelf superstars live, the NBA's max contract has become so common and overused as to completely lose its value and meaning. And critics say it's actually had the opposite effect than what owners intended when they pushed for it during the ugly 1998-99 lockout that cost owners and players hundreds of millions and canceled the All-Star Game.
"When you place an artificial bottleneck, you're going to create disequilibrium," agent David Falk, who represented the NBA's first $30 million-a-year player, Michael Jordan, told CBSSports.com.
"By saving $20 million on the best five players, you're probably paying 30 guys an extra $10 million each. If the owners realized that by saving $100 million it would cost them $300 million, do you think they would've done it?"
"When you set a max, it's a clear invitation to not only the Michael Jordans but also the Vin Bakers of the world to say, 'I'm somewhere on the high end of the spectrum, but I'm going to feel disrespected if I don't get the max,' " a person who was involved in negotiating the 1999 collective bargaining agreement told CBSSports.com. "It's going to be a high-water mark, and everyone's going to be seeking that level. You knew that players who weren't necessarily deserving were going to get it."
"If players were allowed to and able to get whatever the market would bear, does anybody think the numbers wouldn't be different than what they are right now?" Fleisher said. "My gut feeling is they'd be less. There would be a few guys with astronomical deals, but they're worth it."
How many current NBA players are "worth it"? That's a judgment call, and one the market is not capable of sorting out and agents can no longer fully negotiate. In Falk's estimation, you start with James and Kevin Durant and get to "maybe Russell Westbrook," he said. Bryant, who in 2013-14 became the first $30 million-a-year player since Jordan, would've spent a decade earning more than that in a free-market system. (Bryant's seven-year, $136 million deal from 2004-11 had been the high-water mark before Davis came along.)
"If you only had Kobe and LeBron making the max all these years, no player in the league would ever think they were worth what Kobe and LeBron are worth," Falk said. "So you're grossly overpaying the people that aren't as valuable because you've created this artificial limitation."
This is completely correct. By placing an artificial restriction on salaries, max contracts have become meaningless. The top player should set the ceiling and the market will adjust around that. Instead we have Enes Kanter and Wes Matthews et al about to get max deals :hammerhead:
The problem is, outside the rarified air where Davis and other top-shelf superstars live, the NBA's max contract has become so common and overused as to completely lose its value and meaning. And critics say it's actually had the opposite effect than what owners intended when they pushed for it during the ugly 1998-99 lockout that cost owners and players hundreds of millions and canceled the All-Star Game.
"When you place an artificial bottleneck, you're going to create disequilibrium," agent David Falk, who represented the NBA's first $30 million-a-year player, Michael Jordan, told CBSSports.com.
"By saving $20 million on the best five players, you're probably paying 30 guys an extra $10 million each. If the owners realized that by saving $100 million it would cost them $300 million, do you think they would've done it?"
"When you set a max, it's a clear invitation to not only the Michael Jordans but also the Vin Bakers of the world to say, 'I'm somewhere on the high end of the spectrum, but I'm going to feel disrespected if I don't get the max,' " a person who was involved in negotiating the 1999 collective bargaining agreement told CBSSports.com. "It's going to be a high-water mark, and everyone's going to be seeking that level. You knew that players who weren't necessarily deserving were going to get it."
"If players were allowed to and able to get whatever the market would bear, does anybody think the numbers wouldn't be different than what they are right now?" Fleisher said. "My gut feeling is they'd be less. There would be a few guys with astronomical deals, but they're worth it."
How many current NBA players are "worth it"? That's a judgment call, and one the market is not capable of sorting out and agents can no longer fully negotiate. In Falk's estimation, you start with James and Kevin Durant and get to "maybe Russell Westbrook," he said. Bryant, who in 2013-14 became the first $30 million-a-year player since Jordan, would've spent a decade earning more than that in a free-market system. (Bryant's seven-year, $136 million deal from 2004-11 had been the high-water mark before Davis came along.)
"If you only had Kobe and LeBron making the max all these years, no player in the league would ever think they were worth what Kobe and LeBron are worth," Falk said. "So you're grossly overpaying the people that aren't as valuable because you've created this artificial limitation."
This is completely correct. By placing an artificial restriction on salaries, max contracts have become meaningless. The top player should set the ceiling and the market will adjust around that. Instead we have Enes Kanter and Wes Matthews et al about to get max deals :hammerhead: