John Collins: I Definitely Feel Like I'm In Max Contract Contention

Moderators: bwgood77, Domejandro

Pickled Prunes
General Manager
Posts: 9,395
And1: 1,469
Joined: Sep 14, 2010

Re: John Collins: I Definitely Feel Like I'm In Max Contract Contention 

Post#41 » by Pickled Prunes » Wed Mar 11, 2020 9:58 pm

lstern wrote:
Pickled Prunes wrote:
lstern wrote:
KG was my favourite player growing up, I totally remember the stuff that you're referencing.

I think that the needs to remove the individual player maximum salary rules. No way should LBJ & AD or Kawhi & PG be on the same teams. Harden and Westbrook I have no issue with, since they were both drafted together and it's almost like revisionist history playing itself out, minus KD.

MIN didn't want to give KAT what they did but they had no choice. I mean, look at what they gave Wiggins just to be a number 2. John Collins wants "Max$" and probably deserves it but without a max salary he might get 15% because Trae's extension is coming up. ATL would have to chose and Collins would likely be the odd man out.

And as much as I was pulling for Cassell and Spree, MIN never did anything with all their eggs in KG's basket. Can you spell L-O-T-T-E-R-Y!

It would be easy enough to squash superteams by only allowing one max player and one super-max player per team. Better yet, if you want to limit the restrictions on individual contracts, make it so a team's top three salaries can not exceed 75% of the cap. That could be split as the team likes:

25/25/25
35/25/15
55/10/10

etc.

All that said, why are we worried about max players being underpaid? They make more than enough money on the court, and sometimes even more off the court. We should be fighting for our schools not for Lillard to get paid more. :nonono:


I disagree. Any time that you place a theoretical ceiling on an individual's salary, you are restricting someone being compensated for all that they do. For example:
2015-16 LBJ attracted a lot of attention. He improved the play of the people around him and that would be widely considered as a very valuable trait. If one team is willing to allocate 50% of their cap towards him, there would only 50% left over for the 14 remaining players. That is the goal, to not place a glass ceiling on production value and allow it to equal out in terms of intra-team parity.

If you don't put a ceiling on an individual's salary, you are restricting their teammates from being compensated for all that they do. Wesley Mathews is clearly worth more than $2.5M but teams are capped at the top and veteran roll players often resort to signing minimum deals because that is all that's left. B elivating the upper-crust of the NBA you would be crushing the middle class. As it stands CLE's payroll was 10% higher than the 2nd highest payroll in the league in 2016.

And Lebron is great... but he does not make his teammates better. Just about every teammate he's ever had has had down years while playing with Lebron. They are there to make him better, not the other way around.
LiSTWithLani
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,505
And1: 3,265
Joined: Jun 13, 2006
Location: Toronto
Contact:
 

Re: John Collins: I Definitely Feel Like I'm In Max Contract Contention 

Post#42 » by LiSTWithLani » Thu Mar 12, 2020 1:46 pm

Pickled Prunes wrote:
lstern wrote:
Pickled Prunes wrote:MIN didn't want to give KAT what they did but they had no choice. I mean, look at what they gave Wiggins just to be a number 2. John Collins wants "Max$" and probably deserves it but without a max salary he might get 15% because Trae's extension is coming up. ATL would have to chose and Collins would likely be the odd man out.

And as much as I was pulling for Cassell and Spree, MIN never did anything with all their eggs in KG's basket. Can you spell L-O-T-T-E-R-Y!

It would be easy enough to squash superteams by only allowing one max player and one super-max player per team. Better yet, if you want to limit the restrictions on individual contracts, make it so a team's top three salaries can not exceed 75% of the cap. That could be split as the team likes:

25/25/25
35/25/15
55/10/10

etc.

All that said, why are we worried about max players being underpaid? They make more than enough money on the court, and sometimes even more off the court. We should be fighting for our schools not for Lillard to get paid more. :nonono:


I disagree. Any time that you place a theoretical ceiling on an individual's salary, you are restricting someone being compensated for all that they do. For example:
2015-16 LBJ attracted a lot of attention. He improved the play of the people around him and that would be widely considered as a very valuable trait. If one team is willing to allocate 50% of their cap towards him, there would only 50% left over for the 14 remaining players. That is the goal, to not place a glass ceiling on production value and allow it to equal out in terms of intra-team parity.

If you don't put a ceiling on an individual's salary, you are restricting their teammates from being compensated for all that they do. Wesley Mathews is clearly worth more than $2.5M but teams are capped at the top and veteran roll players often resort to signing minimum deals because that is all that's left. B elivating the upper-crust of the NBA you would be crushing the middle class. As it stands CLE's payroll was 10% higher than the 2nd highest payroll in the league in 2016.

And Lebron is great... but he does not make his teammates better. Just about every teammate he's ever had has had down years while playing with Lebron. They are there to make him better, not the other way around.

I'm not a Lebron stan, so I wasn't intending on debating about him.

Back to the salary cap, it would be up to the teams to decide how valuable individual players are. No matter what you say, parity would be greater in a league without individual max contracts.

If you agree that the NBA is a star driven league and people would rather pay to watch Luka more so than Delon Wright for example, then the discrepancy in salary should also be reflected in their ability to draw people to the stands, to purchase merchandise and to tune in via TV. This is also why people refer to stars as being 'good for the league', because they attract attention, which is most of what matters in the entertainment industry. Companies leverage these players that have gravity as well, by paying them to drink gatorade on commercials or driving a Kia or whatnot.

Another example; what if people are drawn to Apple, because of their admiration of Steve Jobs? Should he have a cap on his compensation?
Or Tesla with Elon Musk?

Some people are larger than life.

This is true of every profession, be it the lead in a band, the ceo of a company, the captain of a sports team or the rainmaker of a sales team. The expression is that you eat what you kill.

If a player's value on the open market exceeds the maximum salary, he presents more value than you are paying him for. LBJ & Wade & Bosh were all great and could have had their own team, but since salaries were capped, they couldn't get more anyway, so why not pair up with that other star and increase your chances of winning?
Same goes for GSW with KD, Curry, Klay, Dray and Cousins. Any of those guys could be getting big dollars elsewhere...
Image
Pickled Prunes
General Manager
Posts: 9,395
And1: 1,469
Joined: Sep 14, 2010

Re: John Collins: I Definitely Feel Like I'm In Max Contract Contention 

Post#43 » by Pickled Prunes » Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:59 am

lstern wrote:
Pickled Prunes wrote:
lstern wrote:
I disagree. Any time that you place a theoretical ceiling on an individual's salary, you are restricting someone being compensated for all that they do. For example:
2015-16 LBJ attracted a lot of attention. He improved the play of the people around him and that would be widely considered as a very valuable trait. If one team is willing to allocate 50% of their cap towards him, there would only 50% left over for the 14 remaining players. That is the goal, to not place a glass ceiling on production value and allow it to equal out in terms of intra-team parity.

If you don't put a ceiling on an individual's salary, you are restricting their teammates from being compensated for all that they do. Wesley Mathews is clearly worth more than $2.5M but teams are capped at the top and veteran roll players often resort to signing minimum deals because that is all that's left. B elivating the upper-crust of the NBA you would be crushing the middle class. As it stands CLE's payroll was 10% higher than the 2nd highest payroll in the league in 2016.

And Lebron is great... but he does not make his teammates better. Just about every teammate he's ever had has had down years while playing with Lebron. They are there to make him better, not the other way around.

I'm not a Lebron stan, so I wasn't intending on debating about him.

Back to the salary cap, it would be up to the teams to decide how valuable individual players are. No matter what you say, parity would be greater in a league without individual max contracts.

If you agree that the NBA is a star driven league and people would rather pay to watch Luka more so than Delon Wright for example, then the discrepancy in salary should also be reflected in their ability to draw people to the stands, to purchase merchandise and to tune in via TV. This is also why people refer to stars as being 'good for the league', because they attract attention, which is most of what matters in the entertainment industry. Companies leverage these players that have gravity as well, by paying them to drink gatorade on commercials or driving a Kia or whatnot.

Another example; what if people are drawn to Apple, because of their admiration of Steve Jobs? Should he have a cap on his compensation?
Or Tesla with Elon Musk?

Some people are larger than life.

This is true of every profession, be it the lead in a band, the ceo of a company, the captain of a sports team or the rainmaker of a sales team. The expression is that you eat what you kill.

If a player's value on the open market exceeds the maximum salary, he presents more value than you are paying him for. LBJ & Wade & Bosh were all great and could have had their own team, but since salaries were capped, they couldn't get more anyway, so why not pair up with that other star and increase your chances of winning?
Same goes for GSW with KD, Curry, Klay, Dray and Cousins. Any of those guys could be getting big dollars elsewhere...

The debate isn't about parity. If it was we would be talking about making Milwaukee warmer in the winter and Phoenix cooler in the summer.We would be talking about greater revenue sharing to even out regional ad buys. All things being equal, the biggest names are still going to gravitate towards the local that they think brings a better quality of life.

I'm talking about inequality in pay between players. As the game grows, players salary grows with it. Stars are more than adequately compensated. And the top players on each team have a huge advantage in non-basketball related income as well. But you're talking about paying Giannis more by paying Middleton less. Giannis is great, but he doesn't work 3 times as hard as Middleton. He's just a freak... a very good one, but still. You remove max contracts and you would have to remove the veteran minimum protections that the league offers teams and more than half the league would be making less than 5% of the cap. It would be terrible for 95% of the players in the NBA.

Besides, the league would fall apart. Teams would be trading away lottery picks to avoid the luxury tax. Not to mention the disaster of paying a guy like John Wall 50% of the max only to watch the team trade away #1 picks that it couldn't afford year after year. So it wouldn't be good for teams either.

So it's bad fr fans, bad for (most) players and it's bad for teams.... Lebron, is that you? :D

Return to Wiretap Discussion