Understanding the NBA Salary Cap when it reaches $100M.

[DMAVS41]

It's going to be a painful time when this new CBA kicks in and the Chandler Parsons of the world are expecting 20+ a year. That's where this is headed.

Yep. The most under-rated bad thing about that Parsons was contract was his opt out after this coming season.

Which he'll do...and Dallas really can't afford to lose him unless we got Durant...and we'd probably just pay both of them anyway.

He's gonna get like 5 years 110 million from us.

Dude better keep recruiting....because that is the only way he's worth it.

[Legends66NBA7]

I'd rather have Middleton at the max over what DeMarre Carroll got, anyday.

[DMAVS41]

I'd rather have Middleton at the max over what DeMarre Carroll got, anyday.

For sure. Carroll is 28 years old.

Middleton is 5 years younger and has way more potential.

[kshutts1]

What?

You just got done calling it a terrible contract....


And you should absolutely view a long term deal with a 23 year old...in the long term. Why on earth would you only look at if for 1 year when the dude is 23 and he's on a team that isn't contending for a title now anyway, but rather building something long term.

I'm so confused as to your position.

Terrible contract in this market. Emphasis on this. As in.. 14m with a cap of 68/69m. As in a near-max deal.

Middleton of 2014/2015 with a cap hit of 11m (next season) is even a touch high. I called it bad. Maybe bad was too strong, but it's also not good.
2014/2015 Middleton with a cap hit of 8.8m (two years from now) is good.

Now, assuming he improves, which is only logical (but the question remains.. how much), then the deal looks better.

But I see a Milwaukee team with Parker and Giannis as the stars of the future and, with Monroe, Middleton is a 3/4 option. By the numbers, Middleton barely improved from 2013/14 to 2014/15. So why am I to expect a quantum leap forward, particularly when he's not expected to be a main option?

Maybe I'm way off base, because everyone is touting him as an elite defensive player, and I only know him as a good one. If he's elite on D, that changes things, as he's already an elite 3p shooter.

And I totally understand contracts take into account age and potential but, for the sake of argument, let's say he remains static as a third-option, 15/4/4, elite-3p-good-D kind of player. I don't want to pay him 14m next season. Or 11m equivalent the following.

If I were the Bucks, I would have offered 2/22, and sold it to him as "we expect you to be awesome, so you'll be a FA when the cap spikes, then we can really give you the money you deserve".

That type of contract mitigates the short term risk to a huge degree and, because of team situation (on the up) and Bird Rights, re-signing him should be relatively easy. I just really don't like the short-term risk involved in this deal. Long term? Should be great.

And those are my misgivings on one of the better FA deals this summer.

I recognize and admit that I'd be a bad FA-signing GM, in that I wouldn't let other teams' bad deals/offers affect my position. I wouldn't get many "big fish". But when I see other teams make bad deals, or other agents lock down awesome deals for their players, I don't think that that's the new market. I think that they're mistakes. DMavs made the argument that bad deal or not, it IS the market, and I see his point. I just won't bend to that, if that makes sense. So I'd be a bad FA-signing GM, but at least my team would have value?

[Jameerthefear]

middleton was arguably the best player on the bucks last year

[DMAVS41]

Your broad methodology is seems fine and I agree with it...if we were talking about a guy like Reggie Jackson.

I think you really under-rate the value of this contract long term though...and seem to not realize that Middelton does everything that every team in the NBA is paying out the ass (and for good reason) to get.

It's always player specific.

And not bringing back Middleton this year for the Bucks would be a costly mistake going forward.

You say it's a terrible contract in this cap, but that isn't even true. Contracts are based on the market. You can't call every contract terrible.

[HurricaneKid]

Terrible contract in this market. Emphasis on this. As in.. 14m with a cap of 68/69m. As in a near-max deal.

Middleton of 2014/2015 with a cap hit of 11m (next season) is even a touch high. I called it bad. Maybe bad was too strong, but it's also not good.
2014/2015 Middleton with a cap hit of 8.8m (two years from now) is good.

Now, assuming he improves, which is only logical (but the question remains.. how much), then the deal looks better.

But I see a Milwaukee team with Parker and Giannis as the stars of the future and, with Monroe, Middleton is a 3/4 option. By the numbers, Middleton barely improved from 2013/14 to 2014/15. So why am I to expect a quantum leap forward, particularly when he's not expected to be a main option?

Maybe I'm way off base, because everyone is touting him as an elite defensive player, and I only know him as a good one. If he's elite on D, that changes things, as he's already an elite 3p shooter.

And I totally understand contracts take into account age and potential but, for the sake of argument, let's say he remains static as a third-option, 15/4/4, elite-3p-good-D kind of player. I don't want to pay him 14m next season. Or 11m equivalent the following.

If I were the Bucks, I would have offered 2/22, and sold it to him as "we expect you to be awesome, so you'll be a FA when the cap spikes, then we can really give you the money you deserve".

That type of contract mitigates the short term risk to a huge degree and, because of team situation (on the up) and Bird Rights, re-signing him should be relatively easy. I just really don't like the short-term risk involved in this deal. Long term? Should be great.

And those are my misgivings on one of the better FA deals this summer.

I recognize and admit that I'd be a bad FA-signing GM, in that I wouldn't let other teams' bad deals/offers affect my position. I wouldn't get many "big fish". But when I see other teams make bad deals, or other agents lock down awesome deals for their players, I don't think that that's the new market. I think that they're mistakes. DMavs made the argument that bad deal or not, it IS the market, and I see his point. I just won't bend to that, if that makes sense. So I'd be a bad FA-signing GM, but at least my team would have value?

You would never sign a FA ever. Not even your own. Which means you wouldn't be a GM long. This is a phenomenal signing at great value. Maybe you just never saw the Bucks this year.

Middleton played ~85% of his minutes at the 2. And look at the starting lineup. MCW, (Middleton), Giannis, Jabari, Monroe. Who on that team is going to make a shot from >15 ft?

He should have gotten more.

2/22 offer makes you the laughingstock of the league with agents. And it also means you are removing the part of the deal that you say is the most valuable (when the cap is 108M+).

Locking in top 10 RAPM players who are 23 for Amir Johnson money is a no brainer. I think less of you because of this conversation.

[HurricaneKid]

middleton was arguably the best player on the bucks last year

I don't think its even possible to argue otherwise. No Bucks fan would. The front office traded away Knight to clear room for him. After the Knight trade he was 17/4.4/3.1 on elite %s. And keep in mind, the Bucks play slower pace defensive slugfest games.

[DMAVS41]

I don't think its even possible to argue otherwise. No Bucks fan would. The front office traded away Knight to clear room for him. After the Knight trade he was 17/4.4/3.1 on elite %s. And keep in mind, the Bucks play slower pace defensive slugfest games.

I still can't believe rebuilding teams like the Lakers and Sixers and Blazers didn't offer this guy a max deal.

Just stupid.

Bucks are so lucky that none of these damn teams do their ****ing homework.

[kshutts1]

You would never sign a FA ever. Not even your own. Which means you wouldn't be a GM long. This is a phenomenal signing at great value. Maybe you just never saw the Bucks this year.

Middleton played ~85% of his minutes at the 2. And look at the starting lineup. MCW, (Middleton), Giannis, Jabari, Monroe. Who on that team is going to make a shot from >15 ft?

He should have gotten more.

2/22 offer makes you the laughingstock of the league with agents. And it also means you are removing the part of the deal that you say is the most valuable (when the cap is 108M+).

Locking in top 10 RAPM players who are 23 for Amir Johnson money is a no brainer. I think less of you because of this conversation.

Laughingstock why? I'd rather give a player more money IF they earn it than to give them less money (but still a lot) before they earn it. I feel like agents would prefer this approach.

2/22 is a HUGE pay raise for Middleton, and represents a very solid deal for HIM. If he improves, which we all think he will, but it is still a risk, then he's becoming a FA just in time for the Bucks to offer him WAY MORE money.

I'd prefer to pay for what I'm getting, even if the number is significantly higher, on a much less risky deal than to do take on additional risk to save a few bucks.

If Middleton does not improve much, then his current deal is a bad deal this year and next, with it being a good deal the following three years. Net result is a good deal, but barely.

If he does improve, and significantly, then it's an amazing deal for the team, but Middleton seriously shorted himself.

With my method, if he doesn't improve, it's a slightly bad deal this year and next, for a net result of slightly bad.

And if he does improve, then it's a good deal this year and next, and then he can resign for what he's worth instead of playing for pennies on the dollar.

I guess I fail to see what's so terrible about my idea.

[Rooster]

Laughingstock why? I'd rather give a player more money IF they earn it than to give them less money (but still a lot) before they earn it. I feel like agents would prefer this approach.

2/22 is a HUGE pay raise for Middleton, and represents a very solid deal for HIM. If he improves, which we all think he will, but it is still a risk, then he's becoming a FA just in time for the Bucks to offer him WAY MORE money.

I'd prefer to pay for what I'm getting, even if the number is significantly higher, on a much less risky deal than to do take on additional risk to save a few bucks.

If Middleton does not improve much, then his current deal is a bad deal this year and next, with it being a good deal the following three years. Net result is a good deal, but barely.

If he does improve, and significantly, then it's an amazing deal for the team, but Middleton seriously shorted himself.

With my method, if he doesn't improve, it's a slightly bad deal this year and next, for a net result of slightly bad.

And if he does improve, then it's a good deal this year and next, and then he can resign for what he's worth instead of playing for pennies on the dollar.

I guess I fail to see what's so terrible about my idea.

Your idea is good business wise. An owner has done it that way. Never overpay players even it was your own. He made a lot of money but its terrible to be fan of that team.

[DMAVS41]

Laughingstock why? I'd rather give a player more money IF they earn it than to give them less money (but still a lot) before they earn it. I feel like agents would prefer this approach.

2/22 is a HUGE pay raise for Middleton, and represents a very solid deal for HIM. If he improves, which we all think he will, but it is still a risk, then he's becoming a FA just in time for the Bucks to offer him WAY MORE money.

I'd prefer to pay for what I'm getting, even if the number is significantly higher, on a much less risky deal than to do take on additional risk to save a few bucks.

If Middleton does not improve much, then his current deal is a bad deal this year and next, with it being a good deal the following three years. Net result is a good deal, but barely.

If he does improve, and significantly, then it's an amazing deal for the team, but Middleton seriously shorted himself.

With my method, if he doesn't improve, it's a slightly bad deal this year and next, for a net result of slightly bad.

And if he does improve, then it's a good deal this year and next, and then he can resign for what he's worth instead of playing for pennies on the dollar.

I guess I fail to see what's so terrible about my idea.

So you are basically not trying to win ever...right?

It's a terrible idea because it gives you 0 chance to retain Middelton and alienates every other player on your team...and your coaching staff.

Made even worse by the fact that 5 years 70 million for Middelton is a great deal.

So not only does your way hurt the relationship with your fans, players, and coaches....but it also shows them you have no ****ing clue how to evaluate talent or how good a deal is in given market conditions.

You are essentially describing the Donald Sterling method....LOL

[kshutts1]

Your idea is good business wise. An owner has done it that way. Never overpay players even it was your own. He made a lot of money but its terrible to be fan of that team.

I'd happily pay players what they're worth. If they're worth a max deal, I'll pay the tax to do it.

But I'm not gonna pay someone, that's been in the league three years and shown minimal improvement the last two years, like they're a star.

[kshutts1]

So you are basically not trying to win ever...right?

It's a terrible idea because it gives you 0 chance to retain Middelton and alienates every other player on your team...and your coaching staff.

Made even worse by the fact that 5 years 70 million for Middelton is a great deal.

So not only does your way hurt the relationship with your fans, players, and coaches....but it also shows them you have no ****ing clue how to evaluate talent or how good a deal is in given market conditions.

You are essentially describing the Donald Sterling method....LOL

Why do I have zero chance to retain him? He was a RFA this summer. If he didn't like the offer, he could have sought out something else, that I may or may not have matched. But then I was telling him he'd be getting a HUGE max in 2 years. He wouldn't like that? Ok then.

Current deal nets him 70m
My idea would net him 22m in two years, with the potential for a huge, huge deal, that far eclipses his 70m. But I have zero chance of retaining him. Ok.

[DMAVS41]

I'd happily pay players what they're worth. If they're worth a max deal, I'll pay the tax to do it.

But I'm not gonna pay someone, that's been in the league three years and shown minimal improvement the last two years, like they're a star.

Does it matter to you if what you are saying is accurate...or are you just going to continue down this road no matter what?

Middleton has made real improvements to his game....and it shows it what kind of player he is on the court.

If you are just looking at broad stats...and haven't watched him at all...you simply don't know what you are talking about.