[Wojnarowski]: MPJ gets the max

[tiderulz]

Speaking of Bridges; if the Suns don't give it to him, he will certainly get a max offer sheet from someone else.

any team that gives Bridges a max deal will regret it within a year or 2. he just isnt a max player. this happens a lot with role players on a team that wins or comes close to a title.

[Rapcity_11]

They could offer him exactly this deal at the end of the season though, right? The timing here, as with Murray's deal, treats the player like he's doing them a favor by agreeing to sign for the max, and neither player had the kind of track record to suggest that's true.

I really love Denver anteing up to maximise their shot at a championship while they have an MVP in his prime, but there's no reason to combine free spending with locking themselves into guys before they really have to.

Another team could offer him a 3+1.

Sure. But they can, in fact, lock him up for 5 years, no options, if he wants to sign that kind of a deal - just like now. I think the odds of Denver changing their minds after this season, while low, are much higher than the odds of Porter changing his mind about wanting the full max. And I don't view agreeing to sign a deal without options as a significant concession from a guy who has played in zero all star games and is going to be paid the max.

Again, not saying it's necessarily a great decision by Denver. Just that there are in fact getting something out of it. Locking up a guy without a player option is a big deal. They get handed out like candy these days.

[Rapcity_11]

They could offer him exactly this deal at the end of the season though, right? The timing here, as with Murray's deal, treats the player like he's doing them a favor by agreeing to sign for the max, and neither player had the kind of track record to suggest that's true.

I really love Denver anteing up to maximise their shot at a championship while they have an MVP in his prime, but there's no reason to combine free spending with locking themselves into guys before they really have to.

Another team could offer him a 3+1.

And he'd turn down a 5 year max to sign that deal and have it matched?

Assuming that's the case, Denver would be happy to have him locked up for this season plus 3 more, versus 5, if his health doesn't hold up. I just think if you're going to take a risk on a player like this, that risk should be reflected in the overall amount and it's not here.

This season plus three more is a long time given the current dynamic of player movement.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

Why would Denver prefer a 3+1 to a 5 year deal?

[Bentley1225]

So Jaren Jackson Jr. and DeAndre Ayton are likely getting $25+ million per annum now this off-season. It will be interesting how Bagley develops this season to see if he has leverage getting at least $15-18 million per.

[jbk1234]

Another team could offer him a 3+1.

And he'd turn down a 5 year max to sign that deal and have it matched?

Assuming that's the case, Denver would be happy to have him locked up for this season plus 3 more, versus 5, if his health doesn't hold up. I just think if you're going to take a risk on a player like this, that risk should be reflected in the overall amount and it's not here.

This season plus three more is a long time given the current dynamic of player movement.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

Why would Denver prefer a 3+1 to a 5 year deal?

First off, from the player's perspective, obligated for five years doesn't mean what it use to. What's happened is Denver has obligated themselves to pay him a max salary for 5 years, a season before they had to, and received no discount for the risk they assumed.

MPJ has a pretty serious injury history, he could regress on the court, and/or show zero improvement on the defensive side of the ball. Should any of those possibilities occur, they would've been better off testing the market. They'd be better off with a shorter deal.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

[Ballerhogger]

So Jaren Jackson Jr. and DeAndre Ayton are likely getting $25+ million per annum now this off-season. It will be interesting how Bagley develops this season to see if he has leverage getting at least $15-18 million per.

Isnt bagely a negative contract as it is?

[Bentley1225]

So Jaren Jackson Jr. and DeAndre Ayton are likely getting $25+ million per annum now this off-season. It will be interesting how Bagley develops this season to see if he has leverage getting at least $15-18 million per.

Isnt bagely a negative contract as it is?

I would say neutral based on perception he hasn't hit his ceiling yet but this is a huge year for him whether he becomes a $16-18 million player on open market this summer or a $6-8 million player.

[jbk1234]

So Jaren Jackson Jr. and DeAndre Ayton are likely getting $25+ million per annum now this off-season. It will be interesting how Bagley develops this season to see if he has leverage getting at least $15-18 million per.

Isnt bagely a negative contract as it is?

I have him as neutral based solely on potential, but if you're going to trade for him, you better have minutes for him or you're asking for trouble.

[Rapcity_11]

And he'd turn down a 5 year max to sign that deal and have it matched?

Assuming that's the case, Denver would be happy to have him locked up for this season plus 3 more, versus 5, if his health doesn't hold up. I just think if you're going to take a risk on a player like this, that risk should be reflected in the overall amount and it's not here.

This season plus three more is a long time given the current dynamic of player movement.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

Why would Denver prefer a 3+1 to a 5 year deal?

First off, from the player's perspective, obligated for five years doesn't mean what it use to. What's happened is Denver has obligated themselves to pay him a max salary for 5 years, a season before they had to, and received no discount for the risk they assumed.

MPJ has a pretty serious injury history, he could regress on the court, and/or show zero improvement on the defensive side of the ball. Should any of those possibilities occur, they would've been better off testing the market. They'd be better off with a shorter deal.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

The discount they received was no player option. No idea why this is so confusing for some people.

And a 5 year deal for a guy in his early 20's is always more team friendly than a 3+1.

[Texas Chuck]

I'm not sure why we are defaulting in a player option for Porter on a 5 year max. And then calling not giving him one a concession he gave the team.

[jbk1234]

Why would Denver prefer a 3+1 to a 5 year deal?

First off, from the player's perspective, obligated for five years doesn't mean what it use to. What's happened is Denver has obligated themselves to pay him a max salary for 5 years, a season before they had to, and received no discount for the risk they assumed.

MPJ has a pretty serious injury history, he could regress on the court, and/or show zero improvement on the defensive side of the ball. Should any of those possibilities occur, they would've been better off testing the market. They'd be better off with a shorter deal.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

The discount they received was no player option. No idea why this is so confusing for some people.

And a 5 year deal for a guy in his early 20's is always more team friendly than a 3+1.

It's only *better* if he has positive value on that contract for all or most of the contract. If his trade value has turned negative making that much due to injury or play, it's decidedly worse for the Nuggets to be obligated to pay him for 5 years.

[Rapcity_11]

First off, from the player's perspective, obligated for five years doesn't mean what it use to. What's happened is Denver has obligated themselves to pay him a max salary for 5 years, a season before they had to, and received no discount for the risk they assumed.

MPJ has a pretty serious injury history, he could regress on the court, and/or show zero improvement on the defensive side of the ball. Should any of those possibilities occur, they would've been better off testing the market. They'd be better off with a shorter deal.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

The discount they received was no player option. No idea why this is so confusing for some people.

And a 5 year deal for a guy in his early 20's is always more team friendly than a 3+1.

It's only *better* if he has positive value on that contract for all or most of the contract. If his trade value has turned negative making that much due to injury or play, it's decidedly worse for the Nuggets to be obligated to pay him for 5 years.

You can say that about literally any multi-year contract. It's pointless.

[Rapcity_11]

I'm not sure why we are defaulting in a player option for Porter on a 5 year max. And then calling not giving him one a concession he gave the team.

Because player options are handed out often on rookie extensions? Donovan Mitchell a recent somewhat egregious example.

And it's not a "concession". It is however, an unequivocal positive for the Nuggets not to have a player option in there. Is that enough for this to be a good idea for the Nuggets? Unclear. But let's stop pretending there was no reason for them to do it.

[jbk1234]

The discount they received was no player option. No idea why this is so confusing for some people.

And a 5 year deal for a guy in his early 20's is always more team friendly than a 3+1.

It's only *better* if he has positive value on that contract for all or most of the contract. If his trade value has turned negative making that much due to injury or play, it's decidedly worse for the Nuggets to be obligated to pay him for 5 years.

You can say that about literally any multi-year contract. It's pointless.

Right, but with players who either still have a way to go to be worth a max, and/or who have a serious enough injury history to be concerned about availability over the course of five years, it's relevant. This isn't Doncic or Mitchell here where those concerns are clearly outweighed.

[Texas Chuck]

I'm not sure why we are defaulting in a player option for Porter on a 5 year max. And then calling not giving him one a concession he gave the team.

Because player options are handed out often on rookie extensions? Donovan Mitchell a recent somewhat egregious example.

And it's not a "concession". It is however, an unequivocal positive for the Nuggets not to have a player option in there. Is that enough for this to be a good idea for the Nuggets? Unclear. But let's stop pretending there was no reason for them to do it.

Where did I ever say there was no reason for them to do it? I mean they literally did it so they had to have had a reason.

I think they were premature here, but they aren't alone in that. My Mavs handed KP a full 5 year max and gave him a PO on top of it before he played a second for them.

I just think those contracts were not smart and were largely bidding against themselves. This one a year early even.

[Rapcity_11]

It's only *better* if he has positive value on that contract for all or most of the contract. If his trade value has turned negative making that much due to injury or play, it's decidedly worse for the Nuggets to be obligated to pay him for 5 years.

You can say that about literally any multi-year contract. It's pointless.

Right, but with players who either still have a way to go to be worth a max, and/or who have a serious enough injury history to be concerned about availability over the course of five years, it's relevant. This isn't Doncic or Mitchell here where those concerns are clearly outweighed.

Eh, if MPJ played the exact same next year he would still get a max. Also, they obviously feel good about his medicals.

[Rapcity_11]

I'm not sure why we are defaulting in a player option for Porter on a 5 year max. And then calling not giving him one a concession he gave the team.

Because player options are handed out often on rookie extensions? Donovan Mitchell a recent somewhat egregious example.

And it's not a "concession". It is however, an unequivocal positive for the Nuggets not to have a player option in there. Is that enough for this to be a good idea for the Nuggets? Unclear. But let's stop pretending there was no reason for them to do it.

Where did I ever say there was no reason for them to do it? I mean they literally did it so they had to have had a reason.

I think they were premature here, but they aren't alone in that. My Mavs handed KP a full 5 year max and gave him a PO on top of it before he played a second for them.

I just think those contracts were not smart and were largely bidding against themselves. This one a year early even.

It was a general comment.

The KP contract is a great example of why the Nuggets did this. They didn't want to get stuck with a PO. And the market precedence has already been set. Guys like MPJ get max deals.

[Wigginstime]

Denver now has their core tied up until 2024:

Morris
Murray
Gordon
MPJ
Jokic

For a small market team this is huge. Denver didn't want to gamble with free agency because small market teams rarely win. Who is the best free agent in the last 20 years that a team like Denver or Utah has signed. If you are a small market team you either have to pay your guys or trade them early.

[HartfordWhalers]

This contract scares me the most.

[jbk1234]

Because player options are handed out often on rookie extensions? Donovan Mitchell a recent somewhat egregious example.

And it's not a "concession". It is however, an unequivocal positive for the Nuggets not to have a player option in there. Is that enough for this to be a good idea for the Nuggets? Unclear. But let's stop pretending there was no reason for them to do it.

Where did I ever say there was no reason for them to do it? I mean they literally did it so they had to have had a reason.

I think they were premature here, but they aren't alone in that. My Mavs handed KP a full 5 year max and gave him a PO on top of it before he played a second for them.

I just think those contracts were not smart and were largely bidding against themselves. This one a year early even.

It was a general comment.

The KP contract is a great example of why the Nuggets did this. They didn't want to get stuck with a PO. And the market precedence has already been set. Guys like MPJ get max deals.

I'm sure the only regret that Dallas has is that the P.O. isn't an ETO at this point.