RealGM

I think the term max contract gets thrown around this forum so much, too much, putting an unnecessary stigma on it. Of course Moose is coming up for an extension and the sides are split on whether to pay him or trade him.

I read people routinely say signing Moose for about 12-13 million would be a steal but no way would they give him the max. The feeling is another team out there would "overpay" him the max and we would be "forced" to match it. Huh? If he's a steal for $13 million, how is the max such a massive overpay? Do people not realize the max is only about $14.5 million? I guess there's a lot that happens in between that $1.5 mil huh?

I think the words max contract give people a perception about how a player should be performing without taking into account just how much it actually is. Can we keep in perspective what the actual dollar figure is? As crazy as it is, I think people would be okay with Moose making $14.5 million if the max for him was like $18 million/year. Its almost psychological. And if the max was $12 million the same people ok with paying him that now would be wanting to pay him $9 million/year. I guess people think NBA free agents are used cars and you shouldn't have to pay market value for them.

Thoughts?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using RealGM Forums mobile app

No, I think its about the fact that if we give moose the max, we cant do the same with Drummond if im not mistaken.

In no scenario am I giving a contract to Moose if in doing so, we loose Drummond. That, if im right, is the problem.

Besides Moose isn't a max player, period.

zeebneeb wrote:No, I think its about the fact that if we give moose the max, we cant do the same with Drummond if im not mistaken.

In no scenario am I giving a contract to Moose if in doing so, we loose Drummond. That, if im right, is the problem.

Besides Moose isn't a max player, period.

Your last statement is exactly the type of comment my thread is referring to. Elaborate on what your comment exactly means.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using RealGM Forums mobile app

I think its more about not wanting to get saddled with an untradeable contract if he doesn't work out.

In which case its not just the difference per year that opposing owners look at. 4 yr/14.5 mil deal = $58 million. 4 yr/12 mil deal = $48 million.

So its really an extra 10 milllion, not just 1-2 mil. That's enough to make another teams owner think twice before taking on his contract, especially if his production is down.

If he proves we can succeed with him, than it would be ok paying him his max, because it would be worth it us to just keep him and wouldn't have any need to ever trade him. But if not, we could be hampered with an unmoveable contract that's preventing us from winning with nothing we can do about it.

zeebneeb wrote:No, I think its about the fact that if we give moose the max, we cant do the same with Drummond if im not mistaken.

In no scenario am I giving a contract to Moose if in doing so, we loose Drummond. That, if im right, is the problem.

Besides Moose isn't a max player, period.

No, we can still give Drummond the max. Other teams can only sign Moose to the 4 year max, and thus we'll sign him to the 4 year max. Then we can still give Drummond the 5 year max.

monroe isnt a max guy because

he cant play defense
he's a tweener (too soft to defend C, too slow for PFs)
he cant shoot from midrange
he's ridiculously turnover prone for a big man
his hands are garbage, he often fumbles passes
he gets blocked too often
he often complaines and whines to the refs
he's not reliable in 4th quarters
his points do not impact the game
doesnt block shots

...

^ if we only give Moose the 4 year max, we can still give the 5 year to Dre when hes up.

the problem for me is, if we give Moose that kind of money we're pretty much stuck with him for better or worse, a max contract for Moose would be structured 14/15/16/17, so teams will probably be leery of paying him what he'll be making in the final two years of it. with Smith making 13.5, its hard to justify investing 28+ mil per long term at the PF position when we have a glaring hole at SF. unless we can sign Moose and still have the resources left over to fill it, which would be tough without moving Smith.

joseph mamah wrote:^ if we only give Moose the 4 year max, we can still give the 5 year to Dre when hes up.

the problem for me is, if we give Moose that kind of money we're pretty much stuck with him for better or worse, a max contract for Moose would be structured 14/15/16/17, so teams will probably be leery of paying him what he'll be making in the final two years of it. with Smith making 13.5, its hard to justify investing 28+ mil per long term at the PF position when we have a glaring hole at SF. unless we can sign Moose and still have the resources left over to fill it, which would be tough without moving Smith.

Ummm 14+15+16+17 = 62 million. Maybe its me but I thought his 4 year max would be similar to Hibbert which is 4/58.

And I see just by a couple comments here that this thread is needed because they don't want to give Moose the max because it prevents us from giving Dre the max, which is untrue. I think just being unlearned on this issue causes someone's thought process to be slanted in one way or another.

If you thought both couldn't get the max, and now you know that's untrue, does that change your opinion now?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using RealGM Forums mobile app

DetroitSho wrote:

zeebneeb wrote:No, I think its about the fact that if we give moose the max, we cant do the same with Drummond if im not mistaken.

In no scenario am I giving a contract to Moose if in doing so, we loose Drummond. That, if im right, is the problem.

Besides Moose isn't a max player, period.

Your last statement is exactly the type of comment my thread is referring to. Elaborate on what your comment exactly means.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using RealGM Forums mobile app

Big men are always overpaid, precisely because they are rare in todays league, certainly one who can play the post such as Monroe.

He is young, and can improve, but his defense is laughable at times, and he has got to be able to shoot a jumper, flat out. His play in the post is a bull in a china shop, but he has no fall back if the drive isn't there, thus resulting in a turnover. He has no fade away jumper, no face up jumper.

I love his paint play, I just wich it would expand to more then 5feet within the rim.

Just not a max player, I view him more as a 9mill a year type.

I'm not certain, but I feel like I read somewhere that a players max coming off their rookie deal has something to do with their draft position. Is that true?

If so that could explain why Hibbert's was only 58 mil being the 17th pick, and Monroe's is higher? I don't know just speculating.

I think mamah might be onto something though with that escalating thing. Which if true is more reason to be leery of giving him the max.

zeebneeb wrote:

DetroitSho wrote:

zeebneeb wrote:No, I think its about the fact that if we give moose the max, we cant do the same with Drummond if im not mistaken.

In no scenario am I giving a contract to Moose if in doing so, we loose Drummond. That, if im right, is the problem.

Besides Moose isn't a max player, period.

Your last statement is exactly the type of comment my thread is referring to. Elaborate on what your comment exactly means.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using RealGM Forums mobile app

Big men are always overpaid, precisely because they are rare in todays league, certainly one who can play the post such as Monroe.

He is young, and can improve, but his defense is laughable at times, and he has got to be able to shoot a jumper, flat out. His play in the post is a bull in a china shop, but he has no fall back if the drive isn't there, thus resulting in a turnover. He has no fade away jumper, no face up jumper.

I love his paint play, I just wich it would expand to more then 5feet within the rim.

Just not a max player, I view him more as a 9mill a year type.

OK so, for some strange reason you thought giving Moose a max contract prevents us from paying Dre his. Knowing that to be completely untrue now, would you be OK with paying Moose $14.5 million/year?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using RealGM Forums mobile app

Q00 wrote:I'm not certain, but I feel like I read somewhere that a players max coming off their rookie deal has something to do with their draft position. Is that true?

Its not true, other wise Paul George would be making less than Cousins on their next contracts.

My problem with giving Monroe the max is the Pistons will have too much going towards to the bigmen, and others have said theres no real starting quality SF on the roster. I don't think Smith can't and won't be dealt easily for a number of reasons either.

Sheeeeed wrote:

Q00 wrote:I'm not certain, but I feel like I read somewhere that a players max coming off their rookie deal has something to do with their draft position. Is that true?

Its not true, other wise Paul George would be making less than Cousins on their next contracts.

So how does it work then? Because Cousins got 15.5 mil and George got 16.2 mil.

So why is Monroe's max is only 14.5?

It has to do with the salary cap... It will be going up next year which means Monroe's max will be higher... Monroe's max will be the same as Cousins's max... about $61-$62 million over 4 years.

If we could get monroe to accept a flat $12.5 million per year for 4 years we'd be in much better shape if we did need to try and trade him.... that's probably all he is worth putting up 15 and 9 or 16 and 9. $50 million over 4 is pretty generous.

Q00 wrote:

Sheeeeed wrote:

Q00 wrote:I'm not certain, but I feel like I read somewhere that a players max coming off their rookie deal has something to do with their draft position. Is that true?

Its not true, other wise Paul George would be making less than Cousins on their next contracts.

So how does it work then? Because Cousins got 15.5 mil and George got 16.2 mil.

So why is Monroe's max is only 14.5?

Ummm because one is a 4 year max and the other is a 5 year Supermax. And if it is based on your draft position like you said, that would put Moose below Cousins' $62 million.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using RealGM Forums mobile app

Q00 wrote:

Sheeeeed wrote:

Q00 wrote:I'm not certain, but I feel like I read somewhere that a players max coming off their rookie deal has something to do with their draft position. Is that true?

Its not true, other wise Paul George would be making less than Cousins on their next contracts.

So how does it work then? Because Cousins got 15.5 mil and George got 16.2 mil.

So why is Monroe's max is only 14.5?

What are those numbers, the avg? Cousins and George have the same cap hits for the first 4 years, but George has a 5th year player option of for $17.8m and I think theres some incentives with his contract.

I'm glad we're having this discussion because I'm seeing a lot of misconceptions, and I think some good info is being shared. That's why we need to start discussing real #'s and not just say max contract.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using RealGM Forums mobile app

Pretty sure it has nothing to do with draft position, and yes, it goes up each year with the salary cap. Max for Monroe would be something around 4/60 or 4/62 next year.

He's not a max guy because he has not made significant improvements in his game since his 2nd year, still isn't a good mid range shooter, and isn't a very good defender overall. 15/9/2 is not worth the max. If he was a elite defensive player, perhaps that would be a different story...but he isn't.

We can still give Drummond the 5 year max. It is not up to Monroe to get that deal unless he takes the QO and plays out next season. I've said it before and say it again. If Moose is worth 10mill, I'll give him 14 if necessary. Do we really need that 4 mill to sign Jonas again?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums