Worst NBA Contracts

[brackdan70]

Blake Griffin comes to mind when you looks at top paid guys with 3 plus years left that are maybe not all that

I wonder about DAR as well. Yeah he deserved a max deal I suppose but is that going to age well?

[kobe_vs_jordan]

If we talking healthy players, Wiggins is the worst of any. Would be lucky to get half that on the open market. Otherwise, Wall is a ton of money for a guy with little incentive to no just pack it in and call it a career.

[Denisaur9]

Khris?

Middleton and Tobias at 36-37 million a year is insane to me.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using RealGM mobile app

[brackdan70]

Khris?

Middleton and Tobias at 36-37 million a year is insane to me.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using RealGM mobile app

Yep I forgot about Harris. Very good player...but Max guy?

[SO_MONEY]

How's Wiggins better than Paul, Love, or Westbrook?

Age, durrabilty and amount.

Sent from my LGMS428 using Tapatalk

But 3 of them are all stars that are still putting up all star-esque numbers. One of them is paid a max but probably shouldn't start and hasn't shown any growth since being in the league.

For how long? If I even give you that. On the backend, in 3-4 years they won't be. And because of their salaries it prevents teams, even lean teams from adding a third MAX contract slot. Wiggins doesn't do that as bad as his contract is. So you have to view it as Wiggins plus a MAX slot vs a Wall, Paul or Westbrook and the MLE, perhaps taxpayer MLE as large as their contracts are. The negitive effects of SuperMAX players pales in comparison to a Non-Rose-Rule rookie MAX. Underperforming players on one do not hurt you as much and thus their contracts are not as bad. This is not about who is the better player, it is about what is the worst contract in its entirety.

Sent from my LGMS428 using Tapatalk

[vxmike]

Khris?

Middleton and Tobias at 36-37 million a year is insane to me.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using RealGM mobile app

Yup. These other contracts don’t look as bad next to these guys. They’re better players than Wiggins but making close to the CP3/WB amounts. Westbrook is FAR better than either one.

Wall and Wiggins are the worst followed by CP3 but Tobias/Middleton are right there after. Neither Wall nor Wiggins are remotely a star but paid a ton. At least CP3/Harris/Middleton are above average starters.

[Mamba4Goat]

Age, durrabilty and amount.

Sent from my LGMS428 using Tapatalk

But 3 of them are all stars that are still putting up all star-esque numbers. One of them is paid a max but probably shouldn't start and hasn't shown any growth since being in the league.

For how long? If I even give you that. On the backend, in 3-4 years they won't be. And because of their salaries it prevents teams, even lean teams from adding a third MAX contract slot. Wiggins doesn't do that as bad as his contract is. So you have to view it as Wiggins plus a MAX slot vs a Wall, Paul or Westbrook and the MLE, perhaps taxpayer MLE as large as their contracts are. The negitive effects of SuperMAX players pales in comparison to a Non-Rose-Rule rookie MAX. Underperforming players on one do not hurt you as much and thus their contracts are not as bad. This is not about who is the better player, it is about what is the worst contract in its entirety.

Sent from my LGMS428 using Tapatalk

Westbrook and Paul are debatably both top 10 players in their position though. Same with a healthy Love. 2-3 years of that plus whatever else play you can get from them after should be worth that huge back end if you're competing. All 3 of those players actually give you something of value when they are on the court. If I'm looking for a ring and you offer me Wiggins, Paul, Love, or RW I'm taking the 3 all stars over Wiggins without even thinking about it. Wiggins is just flat out bad and is owed way too much. The difference between Wiggins and RW/Paul/Love isn't a MLE caliber player. As teams showed this off season, you can make space if you need. The very massive gap in talent and effectiveness isn't closed by Wiggins making less because he is that bad.

Again 3 are all stars and earned their contracts. Heck, RW was traded for multiple picks and Paul. Trying to say Wiggins has more value than that is just silly.

[jscott]

Wall is #1.

Then after that I would have Paul 2.

Wiggins 3rd.

Russ 4.

[SO_MONEY]

But 3 of them are all stars that are still putting up all star-esque numbers. One of them is paid a max but probably shouldn't start and hasn't shown any growth since being in the league.

For how long? If I even give you that. On the backend, in 3-4 years they won't be. And because of their salaries it prevents teams, even lean teams from adding a third MAX contract slot. Wiggins doesn't do that as bad as his contract is. So you have to view it as Wiggins plus a MAX slot vs a Wall, Paul or Westbrook and the MLE, perhaps taxpayer MLE as large as their contracts are. The negitive effects of SuperMAX players pales in comparison to a Non-Rose-Rule rookie MAX. Underperforming players on one do not hurt you as much and thus their contracts are not as bad. This is not about who is the better player, it is about what is the worst contract in its entirety.

Sent from my LGMS428 using Tapatalk

Westbrook and Paul are debatably both top 10 players in their position though. Same with a healthy Love. 2-3 years of that plus whatever else play you can get from them after should be worth that huge back end if you're competing. All 3 of those players actually give you something of value when they are on the court. If I'm looking for a ring and you offer me Wiggins, Paul, Love, or RW I'm taking the 3 all stars over Wiggins without even thinking about it. Wiggins is just flat out bad and is owed way too much. The difference between Wiggins and RW/Paul/Love isn't a MLE caliber player. As teams showed this off season, you can make space if you need. The very massive gap in talent and effectiveness isn't closed by Wiggins making less because he is that bad.

Again 3 are all stars and earned their contracts. Heck, RW was traded for multiple picks and Paul. Trying to say Wiggins has more value than that is just silly.

First off, as a moderator you should know better than to call my assessment silly...us plebeians lose our cool and make back-handed insults, that is cool, whatever. Regardless, I have over and over it seems broken down why Wiggins is not as negative as the aforementioned. It is a valuable perspective in the assessment. Period.

Second, Westrbrook was not traded for multiple picks, he was traded for the 2nd worst contract in the NBA who will require at least TWO picks to move. The difference between Paul and Westbrook is likely a couple of pick swaps...or heavens...less.

Third, math disagrees with you when you have a player that makes 40% of the cap give or take you can't get 3 MAX slots, it doesn't work. It is great for keeping an established team together, but building from scratch, not so much.

Lastly, their back-end is not worth it to most teams, because it costs assets to create opportunity. Wiggins, you don't even need to trade him to have that opportunity.

[taikibansei]

But 3 of them are all stars that are still putting up all star-esque numbers. One of them is paid a max but probably shouldn't start and hasn't shown any growth since being in the league.

For how long? If I even give you that. On the backend, in 3-4 years they won't be. And because of their salaries it prevents teams, even lean teams from adding a third MAX contract slot. Wiggins doesn't do that as bad as his contract is. So you have to view it as Wiggins plus a MAX slot vs a Wall, Paul or Westbrook and the MLE, perhaps taxpayer MLE as large as their contracts are. The negitive effects of SuperMAX players pales in comparison to a Non-Rose-Rule rookie MAX. Underperforming players on one do not hurt you as much and thus their contracts are not as bad. This is not about who is the better player, it is about what is the worst contract in its entirety.

Sent from my LGMS428 using Tapatalk

Westbrook and Paul are debatably both top 10 players in their position though. Same with a healthy Love. 2-3 years of that plus whatever else play you can get from them after should be worth that huge back end if you're competing. All 3 of those players actually give you something of value when they are on the court. If I'm looking for a ring and you offer me Wiggins, Paul, Love, or RW I'm taking the 3 all stars over Wiggins without even thinking about it. Wiggins is just flat out bad and is owed way too much. The difference between Wiggins and RW/Paul/Love isn't a MLE caliber player. As teams showed this off season, you can make space if you need. The very massive gap in talent and effectiveness isn't closed by Wiggins making less because he is that bad.

Again 3 are all stars and earned their contracts. Heck, RW was traded for multiple picks and Paul. Trying to say Wiggins has more value than that is just silly.

Keep in mind that Wiggins also has a higher salary than Love. So, basically, on one had you have a historically bad player (Wiggins) on a max contract who hurts his team whenever he plays, and then on the other hand you have the cheaper Love--who when healthy actually helps his team win. Easy choice.

The Paul and Westbrook comparisons are more debatable due to the amount of money owed, but these players too help their teams win. Without Butler, the Twolves with Wiggins starting have been at .370 for the latter's five-year career--I'm predicting 31 wins for next season. Add either Westbrook or Paul to a team with KAT and Covington, though, and the Twolves make the playoffs. That's a huge difference, and in my opinion worth the money spent.

[hoosierdaddy34]

For how long? If I even give you that. On the backend, in 3-4 years they won't be. And because of their salaries it prevents teams, even lean teams from adding a third MAX contract slot. Wiggins doesn't do that as bad as his contract is. So you have to view it as Wiggins plus a MAX slot vs a Wall, Paul or Westbrook and the MLE, perhaps taxpayer MLE as large as their contracts are. The negitive effects of SuperMAX players pales in comparison to a Non-Rose-Rule rookie MAX. Underperforming players on one do not hurt you as much and thus their contracts are not as bad. This is not about who is the better player, it is about what is the worst contract in its entirety.

Sent from my LGMS428 using Tapatalk

Westbrook and Paul are debatably both top 10 players in their position though. Same with a healthy Love. 2-3 years of that plus whatever else play you can get from them after should be worth that huge back end if you're competing. All 3 of those players actually give you something of value when they are on the court. If I'm looking for a ring and you offer me Wiggins, Paul, Love, or RW I'm taking the 3 all stars over Wiggins without even thinking about it. Wiggins is just flat out bad and is owed way too much. The difference between Wiggins and RW/Paul/Love isn't a MLE caliber player. As teams showed this off season, you can make space if you need. The very massive gap in talent and effectiveness isn't closed by Wiggins making less because he is that bad.

Again 3 are all stars and earned their contracts. Heck, RW was traded for multiple picks and Paul. Trying to say Wiggins has more value than that is just silly.

First off, as a moderator you should know better than to call my assessment silly...us plebeians lose our cool and make back-handed insults, that is cool, whatever. Regardless, I have over and over it seems broken down why Wiggins is not as negative as the aforementioned. It is a valuable perspective in the assessment. Period.

Second, Westrbrook was not traded for multiple picks, he was traded for the 2nd worst contract in the NBA who will require at least TWO picks to move. The difference between Paul and Westbrook is likely a couple of pick swaps...or heavens...less.

Third, math disagrees with you when you have a player that makes 40% of the cap give or take you can't get 3 MAX slots, it doesn't work. It is great for keeping an established team together, but building from scratch, not so much.

Lastly, their back-end is not worth it to most teams, because it costs assets to create opportunity. Wiggins, you don't even need to trade him to have that opportunity.

I don’t like the Westbrook contract either but this brings up a great point. We have said as a consensus that it’s going to take multiple 1st round picks to get off of CPs deal, Houston paid two. So that would make Westbrooks deal a neutral value contract, so should he even be on this list if that’s his value around the league?

[Mamba4Goat]

For how long? If I even give you that. On the backend, in 3-4 years they won't be. And because of their salaries it prevents teams, even lean teams from adding a third MAX contract slot. Wiggins doesn't do that as bad as his contract is. So you have to view it as Wiggins plus a MAX slot vs a Wall, Paul or Westbrook and the MLE, perhaps taxpayer MLE as large as their contracts are. The negitive effects of SuperMAX players pales in comparison to a Non-Rose-Rule rookie MAX. Underperforming players on one do not hurt you as much and thus their contracts are not as bad. This is not about who is the better player, it is about what is the worst contract in its entirety.

Sent from my LGMS428 using Tapatalk

Westbrook and Paul are debatably both top 10 players in their position though. Same with a healthy Love. 2-3 years of that plus whatever else play you can get from them after should be worth that huge back end if you're competing. All 3 of those players actually give you something of value when they are on the court. If I'm looking for a ring and you offer me Wiggins, Paul, Love, or RW I'm taking the 3 all stars over Wiggins without even thinking about it. Wiggins is just flat out bad and is owed way too much. The difference between Wiggins and RW/Paul/Love isn't a MLE caliber player. As teams showed this off season, you can make space if you need. The very massive gap in talent and effectiveness isn't closed by Wiggins making less because he is that bad.

Again 3 are all stars and earned their contracts. Heck, RW was traded for multiple picks and Paul. Trying to say Wiggins has more value than that is just silly.

First off, as a moderator you should know better than to call my assessment silly...us plebeians lose our cool and make back-handed insults, that is cool, whatever. Regardless, I have over and over it seems broken down why Wiggins is not as negative as the aforementioned. It is a valuable perspective in the assessment. Period.

Second, Westrbrook was not traded for multiple picks, he was traded for the 2nd worst contract in the NBA who will require at least TWO picks to move. The difference between Paul and Westbrook is likely a couple of pick swaps...or heavens...less.

Third, math disagrees with you when you have a player that makes 40% of the cap give or take you can't get 3 MAX slots, it doesn't work. It is great for keeping an established team together, but building from scratch, not so much.

Lastly, their back-end is not worth it to most teams, because it costs assets to create opportunity. Wiggins, you don't even need to trade him to have that opportunity.

Well, tell me would you rather have Blake Griffin than Wiggins? He fits this too, no?

[SO_MONEY]

For how long? If I even give you that. On the backend, in 3-4 years they won't be. And because of their salaries it prevents teams, even lean teams from adding a third MAX contract slot. Wiggins doesn't do that as bad as his contract is. So you have to view it as Wiggins plus a MAX slot vs a Wall, Paul or Westbrook and the MLE, perhaps taxpayer MLE as large as their contracts are. The negitive effects of SuperMAX players pales in comparison to a Non-Rose-Rule rookie MAX. Underperforming players on one do not hurt you as much and thus their contracts are not as bad. This is not about who is the better player, it is about what is the worst contract in its entirety.

Sent from my LGMS428 using Tapatalk

Westbrook and Paul are debatably both top 10 players in their position though. Same with a healthy Love. 2-3 years of that plus whatever else play you can get from them after should be worth that huge back end if you're competing. All 3 of those players actually give you something of value when they are on the court. If I'm looking for a ring and you offer me Wiggins, Paul, Love, or RW I'm taking the 3 all stars over Wiggins without even thinking about it. Wiggins is just flat out bad and is owed way too much. The difference between Wiggins and RW/Paul/Love isn't a MLE caliber player. As teams showed this off season, you can make space if you need. The very massive gap in talent and effectiveness isn't closed by Wiggins making less because he is that bad.

Again 3 are all stars and earned their contracts. Heck, RW was traded for multiple picks and Paul. Trying to say Wiggins has more value than that is just silly.

Keep in mind that Wiggins also has a higher salary than Love. So, basically, on one had you have a historically bad player (Wiggins) on a max contract who hurts his team whenever he plays, and then on the other hand you have the cheaper Love--who when healthy actually helps his team win. Easy choice.

The Paul and Westbrook comparisons are more debatable due to the amount of money owed, but these players too help their teams win. Without Butler, the Twolves with Wiggins starting have been at .370 for the latter's five-year career--I'm predicting 31 wins for next season. Add either Westbrook or Paul to a team with KAT and Covington, though, and the Twolves make the playoffs. That's a huge difference, and in my opinion worth the money spent.

I don't need to keep that in mind because it is false. The only year he makes more money is in year 4. 33 to 28, but the previous three Love makes more. And like you said, health is a concern.

[taikibansei]

Westbrook and Paul are debatably both top 10 players in their position though. Same with a healthy Love. 2-3 years of that plus whatever else play you can get from them after should be worth that huge back end if you're competing. All 3 of those players actually give you something of value when they are on the court. If I'm looking for a ring and you offer me Wiggins, Paul, Love, or RW I'm taking the 3 all stars over Wiggins without even thinking about it. Wiggins is just flat out bad and is owed way too much. The difference between Wiggins and RW/Paul/Love isn't a MLE caliber player. As teams showed this off season, you can make space if you need. The very massive gap in talent and effectiveness isn't closed by Wiggins making less because he is that bad.

Again 3 are all stars and earned their contracts. Heck, RW was traded for multiple picks and Paul. Trying to say Wiggins has more value than that is just silly.

Keep in mind that Wiggins also has a higher salary than Love. So, basically, on one had you have a historically bad player (Wiggins) on a max contract who hurts his team whenever he plays, and then on the other hand you have the cheaper Love--who when healthy actually helps his team win. Easy choice.

The Paul and Westbrook comparisons are more debatable due to the amount of money owed, but these players too help their teams win. Without Butler, the Twolves with Wiggins starting have been at .370 for the latter's five-year career--I'm predicting 31 wins for next season. Add either Westbrook or Paul to a team with KAT and Covington, though, and the Twolves make the playoffs. That's a huge difference, and in my opinion worth the money spent.

I don't need to keep that in mind because it is false. The only year he makes more money is in year 4. 33 to 28, but the previous three Love makes more.

Dude, it's basic math. Basically, four years of this:

$27,270,000 $29,290,000 $31,310,000 $33,330,000

is more than four years of this:

$28,900,000 $31,300,000 $31,300,000 $28,900,000

More to the point, two of those years, Wiggins makes more salary--not one.

[Mamba4Goat]

Westbrook and Paul are debatably both top 10 players in their position though. Same with a healthy Love. 2-3 years of that plus whatever else play you can get from them after should be worth that huge back end if you're competing. All 3 of those players actually give you something of value when they are on the court. If I'm looking for a ring and you offer me Wiggins, Paul, Love, or RW I'm taking the 3 all stars over Wiggins without even thinking about it. Wiggins is just flat out bad and is owed way too much. The difference between Wiggins and RW/Paul/Love isn't a MLE caliber player. As teams showed this off season, you can make space if you need. The very massive gap in talent and effectiveness isn't closed by Wiggins making less because he is that bad.

Again 3 are all stars and earned their contracts. Heck, RW was traded for multiple picks and Paul. Trying to say Wiggins has more value than that is just silly.

Keep in mind that Wiggins also has a higher salary than Love. So, basically, on one had you have a historically bad player (Wiggins) on a max contract who hurts his team whenever he plays, and then on the other hand you have the cheaper Love--who when healthy actually helps his team win. Easy choice.

The Paul and Westbrook comparisons are more debatable due to the amount of money owed, but these players too help their teams win. Without Butler, the Twolves with Wiggins starting have been at .370 for the latter's five-year career--I'm predicting 31 wins for next season. Add either Westbrook or Paul to a team with KAT and Covington, though, and the Twolves make the playoffs. That's a huge difference, and in my opinion worth the money spent.

I don't need to keep that in mind because it is false. The only year he makes more money is in year 4. 33 to 28, but the previous three Love makes more. And like you said, health is a concern.

He meant overall salary rather than annual. Even though the differences are negligible until that last year.

[SO_MONEY]

Westbrook and Paul are debatably both top 10 players in their position though. Same with a healthy Love. 2-3 years of that plus whatever else play you can get from them after should be worth that huge back end if you're competing. All 3 of those players actually give you something of value when they are on the court. If I'm looking for a ring and you offer me Wiggins, Paul, Love, or RW I'm taking the 3 all stars over Wiggins without even thinking about it. Wiggins is just flat out bad and is owed way too much. The difference between Wiggins and RW/Paul/Love isn't a MLE caliber player. As teams showed this off season, you can make space if you need. The very massive gap in talent and effectiveness isn't closed by Wiggins making less because he is that bad.

Again 3 are all stars and earned their contracts. Heck, RW was traded for multiple picks and Paul. Trying to say Wiggins has more value than that is just silly.

First off, as a moderator you should know better than to call my assessment silly...us plebeians lose our cool and make back-handed insults, that is cool, whatever. Regardless, I have over and over it seems broken down why Wiggins is not as negative as the aforementioned. It is a valuable perspective in the assessment. Period.

Second, Westrbrook was not traded for multiple picks, he was traded for the 2nd worst contract in the NBA who will require at least TWO picks to move. The difference between Paul and Westbrook is likely a couple of pick swaps...or heavens...less.

Third, math disagrees with you when you have a player that makes 40% of the cap give or take you can't get 3 MAX slots, it doesn't work. It is great for keeping an established team together, but building from scratch, not so much.

Lastly, their back-end is not worth it to most teams, because it costs assets to create opportunity. Wiggins, you don't even need to trade him to have that opportunity.

Well, tell me would you rather have Blake Griffin than Wiggins? He fits this too, no?

Griffin is bad too, maybe he is top 5, kicking Wiggins down a spot. But Griffin might have something to do with why DET is a team who would trade for Paul. I am sure they would have preferred the younger Westbrook and were rumored to be interested. They are kind of screwed in the interim. Depends on Detroit's FO. I still think they want positive value back for taking him, they will need it.

[City of Trees]

Wall, Paul, and Wiggins

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

[Mamba4Goat]

First off, as a moderator you should know better than to call my assessment silly...us plebeians lose our cool and make back-handed insults, that is cool, whatever. Regardless, I have over and over it seems broken down why Wiggins is not as negative as the aforementioned. It is a valuable perspective in the assessment. Period.

Second, Westrbrook was not traded for multiple picks, he was traded for the 2nd worst contract in the NBA who will require at least TWO picks to move. The difference between Paul and Westbrook is likely a couple of pick swaps...or heavens...less.

Third, math disagrees with you when you have a player that makes 40% of the cap give or take you can't get 3 MAX slots, it doesn't work. It is great for keeping an established team together, but building from scratch, not so much.

Lastly, their back-end is not worth it to most teams, because it costs assets to create opportunity. Wiggins, you don't even need to trade him to have that opportunity.

Well, tell me would you rather have Blake Griffin than Wiggins? He fits this too, no?

Griffin is bad too, maybe he is top 5, kicking Wiggins down a spot. But Griffin might have something to do with why DET is a team who would trade for Paul. I am sure they would have preferred the younger Westbrook and were rumored to be interested. They are kind of screwed in the interim. Depends on Detroit's FO. I still think they want positive value back for taking him, they will need it.

Okay, so what about LBJ? He's making $37, $39, and $41 in the next 3 years. Is Wiggins making less worth more than that?

[SO_MONEY]

Keep in mind that Wiggins also has a higher salary than Love. So, basically, on one had you have a historically bad player (Wiggins) on a max contract who hurts his team whenever he plays, and then on the other hand you have the cheaper Love--who when healthy actually helps his team win. Easy choice.

The Paul and Westbrook comparisons are more debatable due to the amount of money owed, but these players too help their teams win. Without Butler, the Twolves with Wiggins starting have been at .370 for the latter's five-year career--I'm predicting 31 wins for next season. Add either Westbrook or Paul to a team with KAT and Covington, though, and the Twolves make the playoffs. That's a huge difference, and in my opinion worth the money spent.

I don't need to keep that in mind because it is false. The only year he makes more money is in year 4. 33 to 28, but the previous three Love makes more. And like you said, health is a concern.

He meant overall salary rather than annual. Even though the differences are negligible until that last year.

If that is what he meant, than super. Personally, I have them peg at similar value, right next to each other. If a person wanted to flip/flop them I sure wouldn't call it silly. It comes down to durability/upside vs. injury risk/age. A swap of the two might make sense if not for where MN is and that they have been there done that when he was frankly better and less of a risk.

[SO_MONEY]

Well, tell me would you rather have Blake Griffin than Wiggins? He fits this too, no?

Griffin is bad too, maybe he is top 5, kicking Wiggins down a spot. But Griffin might have something to do with why DET is a team who would trade for Paul. I am sure they would have preferred the younger Westbrook and were rumored to be interested. They are kind of screwed in the interim. Depends on Detroit's FO. I still think they want positive value back for taking him, they will need it.

Okay, so what about LBJ? He's making $37, $39, and $41 in the next 3 years. Is Wiggins making less worth more than that?

LBJ is likely worth it, if not on the court, for team profitability. I think that guy could go on and on and reduce his role and average a triple double. Not even in the same frame of reference.